Philosophical Vegan Forum

List of reasons defending the idea that its immoral to eat meat

It's really not eating meat that we think is immoral; it's the killing and abuse of sentient beings when they don't want that (all the active vegans on here support freeganism as ethical).

The reason that killing and abusing sentient beings is immoral is that they do not want to be killed or abused. It violates their wills, and in a major way. It kills them, and tortures them.

EquALLity wrote:The reason that killing and abusing sentient beings is immoral is that they do not want to be killed or abused. It violates their wills, and in a major way. It kills them, and tortures them.

why should it matter to us what they want?

Please don't start up 2 threads on the same topic. Stick with one. Also, there is no need to add your username to the title of the thread.

tostrong4you wrote:why should it matter to us what they want?

It kinda doesn't.

What matters is 'the welbeing of thinking creatures'. On this view, unlike other utilitarian perspectives, the preferences of the individuals involved is at best, secondary to the said preferences. You could follow up with "why should there welbeing matter to us?" and I could not give you a convincing answer to such a question. "Why be good?" is a valid philosophical questions, only in the same sense that solipsism is a valid philosophical question. Many moral thinkers accept that 'we should be good' a priori, while others suggest that good is defined as that which we ought do, deeming is a silly question. I side with the former. I doubt I could ever give you evidence that we ought be good, but I am perfectly willing to assume it.

brimstoneSalad wrote: We can say, "Given what we know to be factually true, if you want to do the right thing in accordance with a coherent moral standard, you should do/not do X"
We can shorten that to "you should do/not do X", or "X is good/bad".
That isn't beyond morality or ethics; that's the very distillation of it. And Ethics are the height of practical philosophy.

bobo0100 wrote:"why should there welbeing matter to us?" and I could not give you a convincing answer to such a question. "Why be good?" is a valid philosophical questions,

So your a vegan without a good reason then?
And why do you assume that not eating meat is "good"?

No, you miss understand me. If someone rejects the values upon which science is based there is little, or maybe nothing you can say to convince them otherwise. provided they can always fall back on "well that's not how I chose to think about X."

You will actually find that science runs into the exact same problems. Science assumes its way past solipsism, but you don't call it illogical for doing so.

Saying something is a valid philosophical questions, does not make prove the gap un-bridgeable. Funnily enough I gave ample examples of how some chose to bridge it that, you promptly ignored.

Many moral thinkers accept that 'we should be good' a priori, while others suggest that good is defined as that which we ought do, deeming is a silly question. I side with the former. I doubt I could ever give you evidence that we ought be good, but I am perfectly willing to assume it.

Not to forget brimstoneSalads bridge which I quoted above.

What I am saying is that "why be good?" is a valid question. But if we can agree that we ought be good, does it really matter?

Furthermore, utilitarianism is not the basis of veganism, which you seem to be suggesting. But it is the basis of objective moral reasoning in all areas, according to its practitioners.

Its not the case that "So your a vegan without a good reason then?" A more accurate statement would be "you act 'good' without a good reason." and as previously stated, I don't find "the gap" a convincing argument to not be good.

Basing your beliefs on far back, agreeable "a prior" conjecture does not deem it a bad reason, in fact all reasoning is done like this.

for example;
P) squares have 4 edges.
P) Triangles have 3 sides.
C) Triangles cannot be squares.

Even here the definition of the shapes is a priori, "legitimizing" the claim "that's not how I chose to think about shapes" and if you disagrees about the definition the conversation is over. There is nothing one can say to convince the other there wrong. Even if you where to show a picture of a square and count 4 edges they are still "legitimate" in there claim "that's not how I chose to think about squares."

If you wish to explore the nature or mortality this flash game is a great place to start http://www.kongregate.com/games/ChiefWa ... hilosopher

I'm a vegeterian because it's healthier and the food tastes better (In my opinion), not because of the animals. I do not care what others eat, but i'm aware animals do feel pain and that should be a reason to stop eating meat. Another reason is that the animals you eat are fed twice as much or even 3 times as much vegetables as it would take to feed the entire human population, so you're wasting a lot of food there. But that's al i can think of.

Did this thread lose a page or am I insane?

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

It looks like it did. Weird.

I'll try to find it.