Counterpoint, something can be less moral than another thing WITHOUT being immoral. There are many MANY reasons to continue eating meat in this day and age, being just as moral as not, is NOT one of them
There are many MANY reasons to continue eating meat in this day and age, being just as moral as not, is NOT one of them
most ethical systems, in fact, do support that position: meat eating in and of itself is amoral to nearly every ethical system i can think of (and i know a lot)
i have a tendency to write very short comments, but i feel i’ve been misunderstood. let me try again:
you set up an claim that, if i’m reading it correctly, says “people believe torturing cats is wrong because they think harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal”
but that doesn’t necessarily follow. people may believe torturing cats is wrong, and that belief may have nothing to do with the other (that harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal). in fact, they can hold that belief without out believing the other at all.
Dude the level of semantics you are arguing is NOT important in the real world. The general reason torture is bad is because its harmful and inflicts pain. The fact that that translates to animals means that (non human) animals deserve to be considered in human morals. Therefor having to harm an animal to sustain oneself is LESS moral than not having to. Since you’ve been actually arguing with me in good faith, even though I feel like this is a semantics arguement, I do feel I need to point out that my stance was never that meat eating is Immoral, I don’t feel with society as it is today that it is. In the future, I think that will be likely, but right now we NEED meat, and far more people would be harmed by removing it as a food staple until we’ve reached a point where access to ethically untainted food has matured to a point that everyone has access to it.
ethics is generally presented with a scale that has three stops: moral duty (something you must do), amoral (something it doesn’t matter if you do), and immoral (something you shouldn’t do). if eating meat is less moral than not eating meat, the only way it’s possible for it to be less moral without being immoral is if eating plants is a moral duty, and no one believes that. it’s not like chewing a tomato is a good thing in and of itself like saving a drowning kid would be.
here’s what i think: you have no formal training in ethics as a branch of philosophy, so you are using terms with which you have some familiarity, but you are playing fast-and-loose with terms that have specific meanings.
you may actually not believe eating meat is immoral, but if that’s the case then it isn’t consistent to believe eating meat is less moral than not eating meat.
you skipped over amoral. in order for eating meat to be amoral, but less moral than not eating meat, eating plants must be a moral duty, and no ethical system (that i’ve seen) makes that claim. it’s absurd.
Look, I appreciate that you’ve been debating me in good faith, I can genuinely tell that you are. But I’m almost positive you’re on the spectrum because you are valuing the strict meaning of words far higher than using said words to understand people. The vast majority of your debate has been semantics and I’m too tired to continue. I do wish you a good day though
Ok then, WHY IS torturing animals for fun bad then? Keep in mind we have a psychological condition for people who do, so at least the medical field thinks its wrong
kant would say you shouldn’t (i think his example was kicking dogs), because it is cruel, and practicing cruelty may condition you so that you end up being cruel to a person, and that would be wrong.
wrong. torture can be wrong while incidental harm may be totally amoral. one has nothing to do with the other.
Counterpoint, something can be less moral than another thing WITHOUT being immoral. There are many MANY reasons to continue eating meat in this day and age, being just as moral as not, is NOT one of them
most ethical systems, in fact, do support that position: meat eating in and of itself is amoral to nearly every ethical system i can think of (and i know a lot)
i have a tendency to write very short comments, but i feel i’ve been misunderstood. let me try again:
you set up an claim that, if i’m reading it correctly, says “people believe torturing cats is wrong because they think harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal”
but that doesn’t necessarily follow. people may believe torturing cats is wrong, and that belief may have nothing to do with the other (that harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal). in fact, they can hold that belief without out believing the other at all.
Dude the level of semantics you are arguing is NOT important in the real world. The general reason torture is bad is because its harmful and inflicts pain. The fact that that translates to animals means that (non human) animals deserve to be considered in human morals. Therefor having to harm an animal to sustain oneself is LESS moral than not having to. Since you’ve been actually arguing with me in good faith, even though I feel like this is a semantics arguement, I do feel I need to point out that my stance was never that meat eating is Immoral, I don’t feel with society as it is today that it is. In the future, I think that will be likely, but right now we NEED meat, and far more people would be harmed by removing it as a food staple until we’ve reached a point where access to ethically untainted food has matured to a point that everyone has access to it.
you’ve said clearly it’s less moral.
ethics is generally presented with a scale that has three stops: moral duty (something you must do), amoral (something it doesn’t matter if you do), and immoral (something you shouldn’t do). if eating meat is less moral than not eating meat, the only way it’s possible for it to be less moral without being immoral is if eating plants is a moral duty, and no one believes that. it’s not like chewing a tomato is a good thing in and of itself like saving a drowning kid would be.
here’s what i think: you have no formal training in ethics as a branch of philosophy, so you are using terms with which you have some familiarity, but you are playing fast-and-loose with terms that have specific meanings.
you may actually not believe eating meat is immoral, but if that’s the case then it isn’t consistent to believe eating meat is less moral than not eating meat.
Your level of thinking is waaaaayyy too black and white, less moral does NOT mean immoral
you skipped over amoral. in order for eating meat to be amoral, but less moral than not eating meat, eating plants must be a moral duty, and no ethical system (that i’ve seen) makes that claim. it’s absurd.
this isn’t semantics. it’s syllogism.
Look, I appreciate that you’ve been debating me in good faith, I can genuinely tell that you are. But I’m almost positive you’re on the spectrum because you are valuing the strict meaning of words far higher than using said words to understand people. The vast majority of your debate has been semantics and I’m too tired to continue. I do wish you a good day though
have a nice day. feel free to look up literally any of the words we’ve been using though. ethics is a really interesting and well-developed field.
Shut up nerd
I’m sorry if facts and logic offend you. can I interest you in a site called “Facebook.com”? it might be on your level.
that’s not what kant would say.
no, it doesn’t. why should it?
Ok then, WHY IS torturing animals for fun bad then? Keep in mind we have a psychological condition for people who do, so at least the medical field thinks its wrong
kant would say you shouldn’t (i think his example was kicking dogs), because it is cruel, and practicing cruelty may condition you so that you end up being cruel to a person, and that would be wrong.