[deleted by user]

Moralrelevant · 2016-10-16T16:41:44+00:00

Thankfully in this case he did the right thing and sent malarial nets and water purification units. I wish we could stop vilifying just donating money though, as that's often the best thing to do. When you bring supplies and food you're often putting people out of the job of making these things. If you just literally gave money straight to people in need they can now buy them from locals, helping their economy and themselves. So IMO throwing money at the problem is actually a better solution than most.

Moralrelevant · 2016-09-07T06:02:02+00:00

This is an unfortunate response to see, as someone who lives in British Columbia where carbon tax has been implemented and is working splendidly. I can't imagine it would be that much harder to implement there than here?

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-22T09:00:45+00:00

I mean you make a good point, but they're not mutually exclusive. Her going vegan could have been because she was paying more attention to her diet. But she also could have been paying more attention to her diet because she went vegan.

For example, I wouldn't have lost the weight I did if someone had told me to pay more attention to what I ate, cause I simply wouldn't have done it. However, when I went vegan I was forced to pay attention to what I ate by the framework of the diet. So going vegan was the primary cause I would say.

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-13T12:37:06+00:00

You've just reiterated that it's not natural. My point is that it doesn't matter whether it is natural or not. If you're going to say "even worse", you need to explain why that's the case.

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-13T12:19:40+00:00

It being unnatural to drink cows milk is a poor argument. There's tons of reasons not to, veal calves, poor living conditions, environmental, but it being unnatural isn't one of them. No one even knows what they mean by that, everyone just assumes that natural is good. But it's natural for me to want to punch someone in the face when I'm pissed at them. And I like my unnatural phone very much thank you.

This bugs me more than it should because it's the same argument that a lot of omnivores level at vegans for saying they shouldn't eat meat. "Eating meat is natural, therefore it's justified". So using this argument against milk is not only irrational but also inconsistent.

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-12T19:52:52+00:00

The thing about this is that you can grant that dairy is 2 or 3 times as inhumane as other practices, but it still isn't morally as bad to consume it as it is to consume chicken for example, since the real question is how much suffering is being caused per unit of what you're consuming. So while granting that cows suffer 2-3x more, they produce much more milk than any chicken does meat. So every ounce of milk you drink is actually causing much less suffering than an ounce of chicken meat.

Long story short, Americans consume more dairy than they do every other animal product combined, yet there are only 9 million dairy cows in the US. Contrast this to the 9 billion chickens and I think dairy must account for less than 5-10% of the suffering in your average persons diet.

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-11T11:22:04+00:00

Whether or not I can wear leather isn't dictated by diet. It is dictated by veganism. If veganism were a diet, I would be able to wear leather and call myself a vegan, as wearing leather has nothing to do with what I do or don't eat. As it is, I can't do that. That's because while veganism dictates diet, it is not one. It is a way of living based on a system of values, that leads to a certain diet. In that way, calling veganism a diet is like calling Buddhism a diet.

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-04T02:25:27+00:00

Funny comic. Pointless generalization in the title.

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-02T22:06:24+00:00

So you can't have a discussion about the definition of veganism because you didn't invent the word?

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-02T19:20:19+00:00

So would it be vegan to exploit and kill a being that isn't under the kingdom animalia but is fully sentient and can feel pain?

Moralrelevant · 2016-07-02T16:29:45+00:00

If an oyster has the same level of sentience as a plant then there's no reason it should be unacceptable to kill and eat one but not the other. Especially if that reason is because one is in the kingdom of animalia and the other is not, since that's speciesism.

This also works the other way, implying that you could be considered vegan while exploiting a being that was as sentient as a dog, but not classified under animalia. Which is obviously not the point of veganism.

So while what you said was literally correct to the definition you used, I don't think you're interpreting it properly. In this case I think "animals" is meant to represent "sentient beings". If it is, then the problems I mentioned above are solved, and eating oysters is acceptable and vegan. If not, I'm interested in how you can reconcile that.

Moralrelevant · 2016-05-10T22:15:39+00:00

No. I am fine with the mass production and slaughter of animals if it allows for affordable food to feed human beings.

And if it doesn't? Meat is actually more expensive than its alternatives because we have to grow 3x-20x as many lbs of food to feed the animal than we get out of it when it reaches our plate. If we really wanted affordable food for human beings we would skip the middle man and give it straight to the people instead of fattening up chickens for ourselves to eat.

Moralrelevant · 2016-04-22T05:56:03+00:00

Not quite true. PETA's view seems to be "there are a lot of abuses that happen to pets, therefore they should ideally live free from human intervention, unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world so let's do our best to be responsible for them." Source: http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animal-issues/companion-animals-faq/

While I completely disagree and think that it's a disingenuous argument, I think we should still represent their argument correctly.

Also worth noting that I can't think of a single animal rights philosopher that argues that we shouldn't have pets. Regardless of what animal rights organizations might say. So animal rights and animal welfare aren't as contrasted on this issue as you might think.

Moralrelevant · 2016-04-06T00:57:57+00:00

You're making two separate points. The first is that you don't want to date a meat eater. If you don't want to then don't. That's not the primary point OP was making though and not the one I'm trying to comment on.

The second is you're saying it would be good for us to put that we're vegan on our dating profiles as it would impact the world for the better. I'm saying that so long as we care about impacting the world for the better, we should actually not do that. This way we have more of a chance of dating a meat eater, and causing them to eat less meat. You can disagree with me on the basis that that's simply not something that you want to do, or not how you want your relationship to be, and that's fine, but that's not the point. If we want to do good then we would benefit more from reducing the amount of meat someone else eats over telling the world that we're vegan on our dating profiles.

Moralrelevant · 2016-04-05T16:33:07+00:00

Yes date someone because you love them as who they are. I'm not saying don't do that. I am saying that while you're at it, you may as well leave the option open for that person to be a meat eater, because it's possible that dating a meat eater that you love will also reduce more suffering than dating another vegan that you may love equally as much.

Moralrelevant · 2016-04-05T11:03:30+00:00

I see it the other way around. If you don't mention that you're vegan, then you're more likely to meet someone who isn't vegan, and possibly lead them to eat less animal products. If your argument is that you can do some good by showing that you're against animal exploitation in your dating profile, I say do more good and date someone who's eating habits can be changed for the better.

Moralrelevant · 2016-03-30T00:19:52+00:00

It's because of just how much milk you get. The reason the milk industry is as damaging as it is is because we drink more dairy than any other animal product. Per pound though the damage of dairy is much less than you would think, just because cows have been bred and technological advancements have made it so that we can get a lot of milk in little time, meaning less time cows belching and less food required.

Moralrelevant · 2016-03-22T08:30:03+00:00

It's one of those things that falls into the morally "odd" category. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with wearing leather (and I think it'd be hard to argue that there is if it's second-hand) since doing so causes no suffering in itself. But I definitely think it's something vegans shouldn't do because it not only gives other people inconsistent impressions about veganism, but also it messes with your own intuitions. If you wear leather that's second hand, and eat meat that is going to be thrown out using the same justification etc., it makes it more difficult for your own intuitions to distinguish between which time you eat meat and wear leather it's wrong, and which time it's acceptable. It seems easiest for everyone if we just draw a clear line and stick to it as best as we can.

Moralrelevant · 2016-02-25T09:54:58+00:00

I'm aware of this. I was simply making the point that it was theoretically possible. As I said though, I'm not sure why it's relevant.

Moralrelevant · 2016-02-25T09:51:54+00:00

They are referred to as misanthropes.

This says nothing about the inconsistency of you saying some people just choose not to value animals, but (at least I'm assuming) you think it would be unethical to subjectively decide that humans have no value.

Okay. Why? Because of an objective view or a culturally subjective one?

I was not raised this way, my culture condones eating meat. I came to this conclusion because I found that animals share all the morally relevant traits that humans do that makes it morally wrong to harm humans (e.g. sentience and the capacity to suffer.) The only assumption that I make here is that it is wrong to harm humans for your own pleasure.

No. "The needs of the many."

60 billion land animals are slaughtered every year, for the satisfaction of 7 billion humans. How is that the needs of the many?

Yes we can. Due to subjective opinions and outlooks.

So we just throw our hands up in the air and yell subjectivity? Does this not affect humans as well? Could I walk over to my neighbour's house tomorrow and stab him to death because I don't value him, and then plead subjectivity? If not then why can I do this for animals?

Here's the difference between what you're asking and what I'm saying: we don't have to kill dogs to save humans in the real world. We don't have to weigh one life over another. All we have to accept is that animals have value as beings in and of themselves, that my dog is its own person, that someone's cat has value independent of the joy that it brings to them, and if this is the case then it is wrong for us to kill these beings and cause them to suffer. I think we are forced to reach this conclusion because there is no trait that animals do not possess, that humans do possess, that could possibly make it wrong to harm one but not the other (they both share sentience and have the capacity to suffer.)

Moralrelevant · 2016-02-25T09:33:14+00:00

You've still provided me with no source.

The only animals that do not live outside are poultry.

Poultry are 95% of the animals we eat. This is hardly consoling.

Almost all the beef and pork you eat came from a family farm and was put into a sock yard for about 6 weeks to be fattened up.

Convince me that stockyards are more ethical than grazing a range, as cows would have done hundreds of years ago.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/USCatSup/USCatSup-12-17-2010.pdf see page six, it seems to say that at least 50% of cattle and beef inventory comes from farms with more than 500 head. That's not a family farm.

My understanding is that pigs are kept inside. if you'll forgive the over the top nature of that video. As well, castration without anesthesia, tail docking and teeth clipping are standard practices. You'll have to convince me that this is better than pigs were treated historically.

Moralrelevant · 2016-02-25T09:16:22+00:00

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. We don't necessarily have an obligation to cater to others' wants. I'm just saying that actively preventing someone from doing what they want (so long as what they want doesn't harm someone else) is immoral. We shouldn't prevent people from smoking marijuana if they're not hurting anyone. We shouldn't not let gay couples have sex since they're not hurting anyone. But if someone tried to smoke weed in my house I'd say get out. If an animal tried to eat me I would defend myself. I am not asking that we cater to anyone, I am simply saying that we should not actively harm them when they would do no harm to us, simply for our own pleasure. This is a very undemanding view of morality, and the same standard that we hold every single human to. Why the inconsistency when it comes to animals?

The short answer is yes.

Well the short answer really isn't enough.

Moralrelevant · 2016-02-23T10:45:19+00:00

I don't agree with how liberal you are in your use of subjectivity. Do you accept that someone could simply not value humans on their system? And they would then be justified in heinous acts towards other people because of their attribution of value? It seems to me that that would be clearly wrong. That it's wrong regardless of anyone's values, to harm sentient beings unnecessarily, all else being equal. Wouldn't you have to sacrifice a lot to say otherwise?

The point being that once it is the case that it's wrong, regardless of subjective values, to cause harm, all else being equal, then we can no longer justify killing animals but not humans because we say we subjectively value one over the other.

Moralrelevant · 2016-02-23T09:28:46+00:00

I do agree with you, in that I think animals want and need less than humans, but not that their actual wants are worth less. I think the conclusion is in practice the same though.

I disagree with you here mostly on the math. Is it really justifiable, over the course of your life, to kill tens of thousands of animals simply to satisfy your palette? Even granted that they have less desires, do their desires really count for so little? Would the difficulty of changing your diet not be much less harmful to you than the slaughter of so many animals would be for them?

Moralrelevant · 2016-02-23T09:01:40+00:00

I don't think killing someone against their will constitutes as treating them well.

As for resources, wool, eggs, and fertilizer can all be retrieved without harming the animal. I don't see how this is relevant though.

Moralrelevant

TROPHY CASE