Philosophical Vegan Forum

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Did this thread lose a page or am I insane?

So i'm not the only one who noticed it? Good, i thought i was imagining stuff xD

many of the topics have lost post's. brimstone (I think) wrote about this in the support section of the forum. not everything will be restored ether.

bobo0100 wrote:many of the topics have lost post's. brimstone (I think) wrote about this in the support section of the forum. not everything will be restored ether.

It should have only been a day or two of posts though.

If Dan gives us a more recent backup (although haven't heard from him) we should be able to restore the posts. Not sure if he has one though.

Immoral, as in violating moral principles. Whose moral principles? It would violate my principles because it wastes resources, wrecks our lands and ocean with pollution and therefore further ruins our precious earth for future generations. Someone who thinks eating meat is the best alternative then, I assert, would not care what happens to our earth after they're dead. Which I in turn find reprehensible, and it angers me to a great extent. Arghh I say at thee.

blackbeanfanatic wrote:Someone who thinks eating meat is the best alternative then, I assert, would not care what happens to our earth after they're dead. Which I in turn find reprehensible, and it angers me to a great extent. Arghh I say at thee.

So, you categorize all meat eaters as bad people?
What about those who truly believe eating meat harms no one. Or those who mantain a vegan philosophy but eat meat because they're not as strong willed as others.
I've met a lot of meat eaters who genuinly care about our planet, something you may find ironic or hypocritical. But they still care.
What you're doing is creating a false dichotomy in which vegans are all good and meat eaters are all evil, which is preposterous.
But i do agree with you that "immorality" is subjective, just as morality itself.

Mateo3112 wrote: So, you categorize all meat eaters as bad people?
What about those who truly believe eating meat harms no one. Or those who mantain a vegan philosophy but eat meat because they're not as strong willed as others.

What does it mean to be a bad person?

Are suicide bombers bad people? Because many think they're doing the right thing in accordance with their incorrect beliefs. Can ignorance make people bad, or do they remain good people "at heart" only doing bad things?

And what of weak will? If somebody wants to do good, and knows he or she is doing bad, but doesn't change -- when do we call consistent and habitual actions of doing wrong innate to the person?

There are many ways for a good intent to turn sour. Why can't we call these qualities bad?
We might be hard pressed to say somebody is 100% bad. But both knowledge and will power are important parts of the whole package.

This delves deeply into the existential definition of self.

Mateo3112 wrote: What you're doing is creating a false dichotomy in which vegans are all good and meat eaters are all evil, which is preposterous.

Of course, there are other evils in the world. A vegan could be a thief, a rapist, etc.
Plenty of ways to be evil -- very few ways to make up for it.

Mateo3112 wrote: But i do agree with you that "immorality" is subjective, just as morality itself.

Morality is not subjective, it is contextual. Subjective implies opinion, context indicates that the right or wrong thing to do depends on the situation and the consequences, not just a set of mindless rules.

brimstoneSalad wrote: And what of weak will? If somebody wants to do good, and knows he or she is doing bad, but doesn't change -- when do we call consistent and habitual actions of doing wrong innate to the person?

Well, i for example, knew eating meat was wrong, but didn't stop until a few months ago. The main reason being that i grew eating very few vegetables, i didn't like them that much, and so to stop eating meat was very difficult. Even more so when my family and friends started treating me as sh*t for my decision. It does take a lot of willpower to stop eating meat.

brimstoneSalad wrote: There are many ways for a good intent to turn sour. Why can't we call these qualities bad?

Yes, they are bad, but to categorize them as the same as the people who do wrong on purpose is not good.
People who know what they're doing and people who don't are different. Because one can eat meat and still try to help the planet in other ways while the other simply doesn't care. My point was that there are meat eaters who do care about what happened to our planet, not that eating meat was fine.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Morality is not subjective, it is contextual. Subjective implies opinion, context indicates that the right or wrong thing to do depends on the situation and the consequences, not just a set of mindless rules.

What about crimes commited for religion? their authors surely believed they were doing the right thing.

Mateo3112 wrote:

blackbeanfanatic wrote:Someone who thinks eating meat is the best alternative then, I assert, would not care what happens to our earth after they're dead. Which I in turn find reprehensible, and it angers me to a great extent. Arghh I say at thee.

So, you categorize all meat eaters as bad people?
What about those who truly believe eating meat harms no one. Or those who mantain a vegan philosophy but eat meat because they're not as strong willed as others.
I've met a lot of meat eaters who genuinly care about our planet, something you may find ironic or hypocritical. But they still care.
What you're doing is creating a false dichotomy in which vegans are all good and meat eaters are all evil, which is preposterous.
But i do agree with you that "immorality" is subjective, just as morality itself.

I categorize no meat eaters as bad people, and I know a lot of them care a lot about the environment, but yes, obviously they're not doing their utmost if they're eating meat. That's fine though, any action at all is eternally much better than no action (I did the mathematics). It was just an example to show how morals differ, but I want to put emphasis on the fact that I fully respect people with a different set of morals and I'm always open to changing my own (hence why I've gone vegan at all). I was just asking: whose morals are we talking about? I apologise if I formulated my sentiment in such a way that was easy to misunderstand.

Mateo3112 wrote: Well, i for example, knew eating meat was wrong, but didn't stop until a few months ago. The main reason being that i grew eating very few vegetables, i didn't like them that much, and so to stop eating meat was very difficult. Even more so when my family and friends started treating me as sh*t for my decision. It does take a lot of willpower to stop eating meat.

This is a good example of context. Like it's easier to be an Atheist in the USA than Saudi Arabia.

I'm more impressed by a vegetarian in the deep south than by a vegan in California -- the former action may require larger amounts of effort.
I think it's true effort, or motion toward a goal from where we start, that's more meaningful to our characters.
If somebody started out vegan, that person just doesn't get to sit there and do nothing; he or she has shown nothing of his or her will to do good in just staying with the status quo.

You put in the work, and you did the right thing despite opposition, and that speaks volumes about your character.

Mateo3112 wrote:Yes, they are bad, but to categorize them as the same as the people who do wrong on purpose is not good.
People who know what they're doing and people who don't are different. Because one can eat meat and still try to help the planet in other ways while the other simply doesn't care. My point was that there are meat eaters who do care about what happened to our planet, not that eating meat was fine.

True innocent ignorance is definitely an excuse that redeems the character of the person who was ignorant.

Keep in mind that there are very few people in the world who do wrong fully on purpose of doing wrong; all of the great evil men of the past have been full or rationalizations and delusions, from Hitler to Stalin -- few or none believed they were doing evil.

Is there a difference between a true lack of knowledge (one who honestly didn't even know meat came from animals), and an ignorant rationalization somebody has constructed to avoid dealing with something (like saying, 'but if I don't eat it, it will just go to waste')?

Both are seemingly founded on some inherent ignorance, although the latter is a more active and deliberate ignorance that could be easily dissolved by just thinking of it given the knowledge the person already possesses. Is rationalizing a form of doing wrong on purpose?

Mateo3112 wrote: What about crimes commited for religion? their authors surely believed they were doing the right thing.

Thinking a thing doesn't make it true. They are doing the wrong thing due to their ignorance and delusions.
I can think I'm rescuing a fish from drowning by pulling it out of the water; that doesn't make it so.

An important question to ask is: At what point do we place the blame on the delusion, and at what point do we place the blame on the person for harboring and identifying with the delusion?