Philosophical Vegan Forum

Humane Hominid wrote:The definitions of what's "good" or "bad," though, are factual claims, based on the assumption that good improves the well-being of conscious creatures, and bad worsens it.

Factual claims are testable. Whether they're true or not isn't a matter of opinion. If the factual claim at the base of someone's definition of "good" is factually wrong, then their position is not good, even if they think it is.

All morality boils down to claims about what improves or promotes the well-being of conscious creatures. The problem is that a lot of people think we know a lot less about well-being and consciousness than we actually do. They're both quantifiable properties, at least in part, and we thus can develop objective standards of right and wrong by measuring whether the application and practice of particular moral claims promotes well-being, or arbitrarily excludes a particular class of provably conscious beings.

Dudugs wrote:But here, you again use your own morality to assume that everyone thinks the same way you do. Good and bad are relative too. Just because to you, animals being killed is bad, it's not for everyone.

Humane Hominid wrote:

Dudugs wrote:But here, you again use your own morality to assume that everyone thinks the same way you do. Good and bad are relative too. Just because to you, animals being killed is bad, it's not for everyone.

Nope.

It doesn't matter if everyone thinks the way I do. The definitions of "good" and "bad" in every moral philosophy hinge on the concept of well-being, which can only matter to creatures who are conscious.

That's an observation, not an opinion.

And again, any given moral philosophy -- yes, even yours -- contains assumptions about what well-being is, what consciousness is, and how they relate to good and bad. Those underlying assumptions are empirical claims, which are testable by the scientific method. If the underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect, factually speaking, then we no longer need to consider them or grant them respect.

Not because they think different from us, but because they are not true.

So, if the assumptions underlying your philosophy that it's OK to stab and eat everything are factually incorrect, then your philosophy is objectively wrong, even if you don't think it is, and no matter how much you argue that all morality is relative.

That you don't think the same way as me is irrelevant. You think it all you like, but it's not entitled to respect.

Dudugs wrote: sigh

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.

PrincessPeach wrote:

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.

How can you say that omnivores want to avoid suffering of their own species, I would not call these people omnivores I would call it more speciesism.
[source]
It seems that you forget that humans are animals, we are in the same kingdom as the other animals in the animal kingdom, sorry there is no human kingdom. People are animals, you shouldn't forget this fact.

Dudugs wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

Bugs are animals, you don't care about them, do you?

PrincessPeach wrote:

Dudugs wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

Bugs are animals, you don't care about them, do you?

I care highly for bugs what in the world would make you assume otherwise?

Humane Hominid wrote:

Steve wrote:I didn't answer the question or I just didn't answer the question to your satisfaction?

You didn't answer the question. Kanade asked what was your logical moral criteria for one sentient being to be more valuable than another. Your response was all over the place, with no apparent underlying logic.

If your wanting some clearly defined specific formula as to how I determine sentient value I don't have a specific one.

This is more along the lines of what I think Kanade was looking for.

I make decisions on what I believe weighing different factors I know against each other to make my determinations. It is not the easily definable position that most vegans have of sentient beings should not be killed therefore they don't eat them. There are a lot of variables, sorry. I gave examples hoping that would give some insight to my rational. If the examples I gave offered you no insight as to how I reach differing determinations then it seems like your having difficulty taking an empathetic look on my position. Or perhaps I need to give more examples or what your asking needs to be defined better so I can try to answer it.

Well, here's the problem: you seem to be trying to argue that you don't have an overall moral framework, but that just isn't realistic. Everyone does. Whether they've identified it or not is another matter. Without identifying it, it's difficult to make sense of the arguments you make.

Look at it like this: nothing in biology makes sense without the framework of evolution. Take that away, and there's a random jumble of factoids that have no discernable connection to each other. Without the framework of understanding that evolution provides, biological facts have no context, which promotes confusion.

Same with your examples here. They're a random jumble of positions, expressed without reference to an overall context. Your claim that you don't have such an overall framework isn't plausible, even if you believe it about yourself.

Can I ask what is so difficult about seeing a differing view as rational or logical?

Nothing, if it's expressed in a logical or rational manner. Sorry, but yours wasn't. "I have biases" and "there are lots of variables to consider" aren't logical, rational arguments; they're merely observations that tell us nothing about the logic behind your citation of them.

I'm getting the feeling that no matter what I say or how I try to explain my position that it's just going to be labeled as irrational or illogical because it doesn't align with your own views. I personally do not choose to be vegan but I understand the logic of how a person would to come to that belief.

Most vegans on this forum, myself included, would argue that meat-eating is an inherently illogical proposition in the modern world, and that most arguments put forth to justify it are inherently irrational because they rely on logical fallacies and unsupported factual claims. We make no apologies for this, but it doesn't prevent us from recognizing a logical argument when we see one.

The problem is that most carnists think their position is logical and rational, just because it's theirs, and it's never really been challenged. They think they're coming at the question from a neutral position, but they're not. They're approaching it with a powerful confirmation bias born, not of logic, but of culture and tradition that's been internalized and force-fed to them since birth.