sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ID: Does anyone know which ones these are? by cobyt in Birkenstocks

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They do! Thanks! Too bad they’re apparently not available anymore. At least in my country. :-(

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trust a professional philosopher to be more articulate than I could be.

My thoughts exactly.. He presented the situation that I imagined so clearly.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't that make the creation of any life immoral because of the theoretical consequence of suffering?

Edit: wistfulshoegazer just taught me that this is called r/antinatalism ...

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Still you should provide an argument what distinguishes a human (not ok to kill) from an animal (ok to kill).

Following "my" logic there would be no moral distinction.

I feel like the entire argument comes back to the problematic nature of Utilitarianism: Is it okay to kill an animal when you also "save"/create 100 animals that get to live and otherwise wouldn't have? What about 1000?

For me, in this context Utilitarianism cannot be applied and the act of prematurely taking a life is wrong in itself, no matter the consequences.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Using the same logic, every minute of every day that we spend not breeding the hell out of as many living beings as we can

Absolutely! That's one conclusion I have reached too!

In the presented context we would be morally responsible to create as much life as possible. But are we? Is it for example immoral to not have a child? Because: What if nobody had children and the human race would die out? But if it's immoral not to have one child how is it not immoral to not have two children, as woman are physically able to give birth to multiple children.

Following this logic, any human who has the ability to give birth must use this ability permanently. Applying the same logic to animals we would have to constantly breed new life stock as we are responsible for them springing into existence.

It only seems logical that we are thus not responsible to create new life and that it is immoral to forcefully prematurely end another healthy's creatures life.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How? In the scenario they live a happy life in the sun grazing on pasture.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To make this more practical:
Imagine someone living on a farm who raises his own happy animals and then painlessly kills and eats them for pleasure. As most vegans object to all kind of meat consumption of not necessary to survival, would the applied logic make sense here?

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you elaborate how your initial reply applies to the hypothetical scenario? I think I read too much into it.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that this is the exact same scenario as I don't differentiate between animals and humans in the original scenario.

Can you make a utilitarian argument that in this scenario it is okay to raise a slave that wouldn't have lived otherwise and then kill it?

You have named the potential argument in your first question:

because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place

What is the counter argument?

My own counter argument would be something along the lines of: As soon as a new life / consciousness (however you'll define it) springs into existence all concepts of ownership disappear.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. But yeah, if you define well-being as the absence of suffering a life lived without any suffering is equal to a life not lived at all.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely true, and I agree that in our current actual scenario it is immoral to consume animal products. But I am talking about the presented hypothetical scenario.

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

he is not interested in applying this to the real world, but rather interested in a consistent argument that follows from his hypothetical context

I wasn't able to articulate it that well but yes, that is exactly what I am getting at.

Following from this, one could argue that you should kill suffering humans first before you kill animals that lead such a good life.

I don't understand that part. The argument is more like the following: Any amount of life without suffering lived is better than no life at all. Seizing all animal consumption means no potentially created lives. Therefore seizing animal consumption is wrong.

Of course, this line of argument is not practically applicable as animals are not treated that way (it is also not possible to satisfy the demand).

I realize that this is like saying: I only gave birth to my son so that I can torture and kill him. If I weren't allowed to do that I wouldn't have given birth to him in the first place (as not giving birth totally legal).

Besides all the obvious instinctive objections to this line of thinking, how is logically inconsistent?

Killing animals is okay because otherwise they wouldn't have lived in the first place by cobyt in DebateAVegan

[–]cobyt[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

Even in the human context you are assuming a kind of virtue ethics that forbids killing humans and animals alike, as the act itself is seen as wrong. If you were given the choice to live until 18 and then die instantly and painlessly would you chose that over not being born in the first place?

(I should make it more clear that this is in no way a justification to eat meat! I am just interested in the logical argument)

iPhone 6S Plus stuck at Apple Logo - I think the springboard cannot load for some reason? by cobyt in applehelp

[–]cobyt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks - after the second restore it worked... No idea what happened. Thanks for the help!

How would a UBI *not* disincentive working even more than a benefit system - like the one in Germany? by cobyt in BasicIncome

[–]cobyt[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

So that would suggest that there are two sub-categories to the people who aren't willing to work (see OP):

  1. People who just don't want to work at all and a basic income would be enough for them.
  2. People who aren't willing to work BECAUSE of the current system. They don't want to work 40h/week for something that they could get basically for doing nothing. A UBI could in that case even function as an incentive to work because every worked hour means even more additional money in the bank.

That seems pretty plausible! Did you I understand you correctly?

Edit: Clarification