Philosophical Vegan Forum

Morality and ethics are grounded in what we perceive to best for the well-being of conscious creatures. Because they're based on perceptions, and perceptions are empirically testable, it is logical to assume that some moralities are simply mistaken... that is to say, factually and therefore objectively wrong... about whether they actually promote the well-being of conscious creatures.

Cannibals are mistaken that their morality promotes the well-being of conscious creatures. Therefore, they are wrong, even if they think they're not. Just as flat-earthers are wrong, even if they think they're not. Human opinion is irrelevant to factual claims, and all statements of morality can be reduced to factual claims about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Moral relativism is thus neither true, nor a viable defense of any action that others deem immoral. It doesn't matter if your personal morality tells you it's OK to stab and eat everything on the planet; your opinion isn't relevant on the matter. Your personal morality is an implicit factual claim that stabbing and eating everything promotes the well-being of conscious creatures. That claim is testable, and in all likelihood wrong (as most claims and hypotheses are).

If the practice of stabbing and eating everything on the planet does not, objectively and factually, promote the well-being of conscious creatures better than, say, veganism does, then the practice is wrong, objectively and factually.

Humane Hominid wrote:Morality and ethics are grounded in what we perceive to best for the well-being of conscious creatures. Because they're based on perceptions, and perceptions are empirically testable, it is logical to assume that some moralities are simply mistaken... that is to say, factually and therefore objectively wrong... about whether they actually promote the well-being of conscious creatures.

Cannibals are mistaken that their morality promotes the well-being of conscious creatures. Therefore, they are wrong, even if they think they're not. Just as flat-earthers are wrong, even if they think they're not. Human opinion is irrelevant to factual claims, and all statements of morality can be reduced to factual claims about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Moral relativism is thus neither true, nor a viable defense of any action that others deem immoral. It doesn't matter if your personal morality tells you it's OK to stab and eat everything on the planet; your opinion isn't relevant on the matter. Your personal morality is an implicit factual claim that stabbing and eating everything promotes the well-being of conscious creatures. That claim is testable, and in all likelihood wrong (as most claims and hypotheses are).

If the practice of stabbing and eating everything on the planet does not, objectively and factually, promote the well-being of conscious creatures better than, say, veganism does, then the practice is wrong, objectively and factually.

Don't you understand? Don't apply your morality to others. Cannibals know that they cause suffering. However not everyone is like you, wanting to avoid suffering from all creatures. Cannibals want to avoid suffering from themselves and people they like, omnivores want to avoid suffering of their own species and vegans want to avoid suffering from animals and people. All of them know about the suffering. And none of them are right or wrong. According to cannibals, their morality is the best one. According to omnivores, their morality is the right one and according to vegans, their morality is the right one. According to the law, the cannibal morality is wrong.

Your error here is assuming those three different moralities want to avoid suffering from everything.

Dudugs wrote:Morality is the rules that define the right and wrong. In my morality literally stabbing and eating everything in this planet may be okay, but that doesn't mean my morality is wrong. Of course other people will try to stop me from doing so, because everyone thinks their morality is the best.

I think you're confusing actual morality and the personal sense of morality. Just like in every other domain—from history to biology and linguistics to health—you can be wrong on the facts. In the case of morality, this is when the consequences of your actions don't benefit the wellbeing of other sentient creatures. In addition to Humane Hominid's post I suggest you read Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape.

Dudugs wrote:However not everyone is like you, wanting to avoid suffering from all creatures.

That only proves they are wrong. Even though they don't have the same objective, morality in it's foundation is about avoiding suffering.

Dudugs wrote:Cannibals want to avoid suffering from themselves and people they like, omnivores want to avoid suffering of their own species and vegans want to avoid suffering from animals and people. All of them know about the suffering. And none of them are right or wrong. According to cannibals, their morality is the best one. According to omnivores, their morality is the right one and according to vegans, their morality is the right one. According to the law, the cannibal morality is wrong.

It's an expansion of our moral circle, where vegans are going even one step further based on the realization that speciesism doesn't hold any water. It only demonstrates our progressive in understanding on what morality is about.

Volenta wrote:

Dudugs wrote:Morality is the rules that define the right and wrong. In my morality literally stabbing and eating everything in this planet may be okay, but that doesn't mean my morality is wrong. Of course other people will try to stop me from doing so, because everyone thinks their morality is the best.

I think you're confusing actual morality and the personal sense of morality. Just like in every other domain—from history to biology and linguistics to health—you can be wrong on the facts. In the case of morality, this is when the consequences of your actions don't benefit the wellbeing of other sentient creatures. In addition to Humane Hominid's post I suggest you read Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape.

Dudugs wrote:However not everyone is like you, wanting to avoid suffering from all creatures.

That only proves they are wrong. Even though they don't have the same objective, morality in it's foundation is about avoiding suffering.

Dudugs wrote:Cannibals want to avoid suffering from themselves and people they like, omnivores want to avoid suffering of their own species and vegans want to avoid suffering from animals and people. All of them know about the suffering. And none of them are right or wrong. According to cannibals, their morality is the best one. According to omnivores, their morality is the right one and according to vegans, their morality is the right one. According to the law, the cannibal morality is wrong.

It's an expansion of our moral circle, where vegans are going even one step further based on the realization that speciesism doesn't hold any water. It only demonstrates our progressive in understanding on what morality is about.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/morality

Read a fucking dictionary.

Dudugs wrote:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/morality

Read a fucking dictionary.

There is nothing in there that contradicts me. The discussion on moral realism and relativism isn't to be found in the dictionary though, so why do you appeal to it?

Volenta wrote:

Dudugs wrote:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/morality

Read a fucking dictionary.

There is nothing in there that contradicts me. The discussion on moral realism and relativism isn't to be found in the dictionary though, so why do you appeal to it?

You claim morality in it's foundation it's about avoiding suffering. Morality is a set of rules that distinguish good or bad.

Dudugs wrote:Read a fucking dictionary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIh2xe4jnpk

You claim morality in it's foundation it's about avoiding suffering. Morality is a set of rules that distinguish good or bad.

And the set of rules that distinguish good or bad are based on..?
Come on, a bit of effort and you might get there.

thebestofenergy wrote:

Dudugs wrote:Read a fucking dictionary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIh2xe4jnpk

You claim morality in it's foundation it's about avoiding suffering. Morality is a set of rules that distinguish good or bad.

And the set of rules that distinguish good or bad are based on..?
Come on, a bit of effort and you might get there.

I'm gonna admit, I laughed a bit when you posted that youtube video.

Those set of rules don't exist to avoid all suffering, they exist because when we were evolving, someone who didn't go around kill members of his pack would be much more succesful than another.

Dudugs wrote:Those set of rules don't exist to avoid all suffering, they exist because when we were evolving, someone who didn't go around kill members of his pack would be much more succesful than another.

And this is the confusion I talked about. Morality is NOT your sense of morality. Evolution doesn't create morality. All evolution does is give you a sense of empathy and altruism, but this should not be confused with actual morality. Because evolution has created senses that are right on the subject is only by accident.

Volenta wrote:

Dudugs wrote:Those set of rules don't exist to avoid all suffering, they exist because when we were evolving, someone who didn't go around kill members of his pack would be much more succesful than another.

And this is the confusion I talked about. Morality is NOT your sense of morality. Evolution doesn't create morality. All evolution does is give you a sense of empathy and altruism, but this should not be confused with actual morality. Because evolution has created senses that are right on the subject is only by accident.

Morality is the differentiation of good and bad. Moral sense is having the ability of using morality in various situations.