Prologue:
Most of what I say is based on observation and is meant to describe how morality actually works. To be clear about where I’m coming from, I don’t think morality is objective. Right and wrong do not have universal truth and depend on a reference point. Society’s morals are relative and subjective, shaped by the people, place, and time period involved, not by some fixed standard. Finally, how we treat animals or anything else depends on our values.
I think right and wrong on the social level is ultimately about who’s morals won the battle not who’s are true because there is no truth.
Reference points:
What I mean by reference points is this: directions like up, down, left, and right aren’t objective . On Earth, it’s easy to agree on what is up and down , but if you’re on the Moon, my up is your down and your up is my down because our reference points differ. Morality works the same way. If we share enough values or a moral framework, you can argue by someone’s own moral compass they should agree something is wrong but if you don’t have a shared framework than a point can fall apart.
How I think ethics works:
What makes societal ethics work is Value, consensus, enforcement and viability.
Just as there are multiple ways to win a game of chess there multiple ways a society can achieve viable morality.
Values a person has a set of moral values, they find individuals who agree and when they have enough numbers they can enforce those values through social norms and legalistic law the most viable of moral systems will remain by proxy of natural selection.
For example in Muslim societies you there are alit of people who don’t even bat an eye at child marriage and this because the right and wrongness of this was defined by the moral victor in that society Islamic ethics.
WHY IM NOT A VEGAN:
I am not a vegan because I value some of my pleasures over the lives of animals. Morality isn’t objective, and the treatment of anything, including animals, depends on the values of the person making the choice. If my values don’t assign animals the same weight as a vegan does, then their argument that I should stop eating meat collapses. There is no universal truth that says eating animals is wrong.
An example of value hierarchy is Most humans naturally value other humans over animals. For example, if you told a non vegan that their burger comes from a cow, they would likely not care. If you told them it comes from a human, they would likely throw it away immediately. It’s literally the same context but a different variable and you can see that variable y is valued over variable x and that determines how it’s treated.
I don’t eat dogs not because they have some inherent moral worth, but because my values, shaped by Western society, assign dogs a different place in the moral hierarchy. Other societies have opposite values, which proves moral standards are relative and observable.
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
If you don't have any ideals and live your life solely based on what brings you pleasure then you probably shouldn't be vegan. People who don't care about other living beings, people who don't hold the ideals of love and compassion, people who just want to temporarily feel good due to sensory stimuli, they aren't the ones that become vegan. No one is going to convince you why you should be vegan if you don't actually care about the lives of others.
Before i was vegan i also said that I don't care about the lives of animals and that i value my comfort more than their lives. I don't think you really believe that. That's just cope. Don't just imagine what these animals are going through, go see for yourself. Then evaluate, is it necessary? Can you live your life without supporting this exploitation? I can.
We are talking about Moral Right and Wrong here correct?
You’re trying to bake your conclusion into the question. You’re treating words like slavery, torture, and murder as if they’re automatically wrong no matter who they’re applied to. That only works if morality is objective or if all beings deserve the same moral weight by default. I reject that idea.
Your slavery analogy only works if you assume moral weight transfers automatically from humans to animals. It doesn’t. I’m not saying pleasure alone justifies everything. I’m saying actions follow from a hierarchy of values and borders. Who the harm happens to matters. Humans sit high on my hierarchy because of autonomy, social trust, and keeping society functional. That’s why your example fails.
If humans were enslaved for entertainment, I wouldn’t support it because it’s in contrast to my personal feelings/values I already hold, not because it’s actually objectively wrong. Animals don’t sit in the same place in my value hierarchy, you’re treating the two as the same that’s why I said you are just assuming your conclusion or at the very least assuming I hold to your meta ethics.
I think you replied to the wrong comment.
Oh yea that’s true
Vegans always blabber about how animals are the same as humans, they are not the same, its that simple. We developed this world and we made technology, animals didn't. All animals should be and are treated as PROPERTY and NOT humans with human rights. Would you want to get sentenced into jail for 5 years beause you crashed into a deer in the road? No
I've never said that animals are the same as humans nor do I believe that.
I do have value for other living beings, it’s just not equal across the board. It’s an uneven hierarchy and I think this is the case for most living beings. I don’t even think I have equal value for all human lives
An easy understanding of this is the trolly problem if you have 5 people strapped to a train track on the other just 1 person. A lot of people choose to kill the 1 person.
Now if the 5 people are strangers and the 1 person on the other track is your (friend, sibling, parent etc) well then the answers people give changes.
Even though it’s true the lives of say your sibling or friends have no more inherent value objectively than the strangers most people still would choose to save their sibling or friend why because they ultimately have more value for their friend or sibling.
In fact the reasoning they did this is because they enjoy having this person around more than they value the lives of 5 people. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆. I just think that is human nature you can’t do anything except but about yourself first. And I don’t think their is anything wrong with that
“ In fact the reasoning they did this is because they enjoy having this person around more than they value the lives of 5 people.”
There’s no proof that’s the case. Another perfectly valid explanation is that we have certain obligations for family, friends, etc that we do not have for strangers.
I do think no action you do for others is actually just for their sake but for what it gives you and that’s not a bad thing.
I disagree. Sure, other explanations are possible, but I think my explanation is more likely. Even if we take your point about obligations to family or friends, it just kicks the can up the road. ultimately it comes down to personal values. You don’t value your daughter simply because you’re obligated to take her to daycare. The obligation itself isn’t what you value it’s your daughter. You value her because of the personal relationship you have with her not because her life is inherently more valuable than the stranger, the connection, and the satisfaction or pleasure you get from that relationship is what I’m talking about. So at the core, it still boils down to valuing something because of what it gives you and the pleasure it brings.
“ I do think no action you do for others is actually just for their sake but for what it gives you and that’s not a bad thing”
So what about a fireman who saves a baby from a burning building? In what way is that for his own sake?
Psychological egoism is the idea that humans are ultimately motivated by self interest first because people only do things they believe will benefit themselves, even if that benefit is just feeling good or avoiding guilt.
Even when a fireman saves a baby, he is still acting in his own self interest first and foremost . The reason he does it is because of how it affects him. He might feel relief, pride, or avoid guilt if he doesn’t act. Those feelings are part of his motivation he acts to preserve his own sense of well being. If he didn’t care about how it made him feel, he would behave no differently than someone who does nothing. The action helps someone else, but the main reason he acts is not the baby itself but because of how he feels.
“ Psychological egoism is the idea that humans are ultimately motivated by self interest first because people only do things they believe will benefit themselves, even if that benefit is just feeling good or avoiding guilt.
Yes, I understand. Psychological egoism also just happens to be a pretty much discredited theory.
“ The reason he does it is because of how it affects him. He might feel relief, pride, or avoid guilt if he doesn’t act”
So let me get straight, you think it’s more in his interest to not feel guilt than it is in his interest to not die?
And even if this is the case, sure maybe some firefighters save babies from burning buildings because they feel guilt, but there’s no reason to think all firefighters do.
Just because I could eat a bowl of pasta because I think it’ll give me $100, doesn’t mean every time someone eats a bowl of pasta they are doing it to get $100.
Or what about a man that throws himself onto a grenade to save others?
Or a mother that sacrifices her life for her children?
Life isn't a trolley problem. You're just choosing to have animals slaughtered for your own pleasure.
It's not nature. It's choice. Unlike other animals, humans are capable of making decisions based on more than just instinct. We get to choose what we do.
The point of the analogy is not to say life is a trolly problem but to point out that people do have a hierarchy of values and that you can actively see these values in the way people answer it.
Yeah, but the thing is a trolley problem is only relevant when something has to die. Outside of that hypothetical context, killing something because you think it's lesser than you isn't about saving someone. It's pure cruelty.
It doesn't matter if you have a hierarchy when nothing has to die.
Like I said before, the trolley problem does show a hierarchy of values. That part is undeniable. I wasn’t using it to argue that morality is just “I value X and Y” in a flat sense. The point is that X and Y don’t have equal value. People clearly assign disproportionate value, and their choices reveal that.
When you say “well someone has to die in the trolley problem,” that’s true, but it completely misses the point I’m making. The point isn’t that death is unavoidable. The point is who you choose to die and why. That choice exposes how moral values work and how you rank lives, animals, or things relative to each other.
You can say animals don’t have to be eaten, but that doesn’t explain why someone shouldn’t value their own life, pleasure, or convenience over an animal’s death. The only ways to argue against that are either to show an inconsistency in their values, or to say that, at the level of social ethics, it’s wrong. But if someone’s personal values don’t contradict themselves, then on the personal level it’s logically coherent, regardless of whether you like it.
Of course it makes sense to value your own life over an animals. I value my own life over animals. I value my family's lives over strangers. I don't however use my attributed value level to justify killing people or animals.
Would you kill a stranger who is a nuisance to you just because you value their life less than yours and it would make your life easier?
I have no problem with the way you describe how you value people and animals. My point is that it's completely disconnected from murder and slaughter.
there is no objective morality it is up to subjective values.
“Life isn’t a trolley problem. You’re just choosing to have animals slaughtered for your own pleasure… humans are capable of making decisions based on more than just instinct.”
I get that. Humans make choices based on what they value most. I choose to eat animals because taste are higher than the value I assign to animals. That is personal values. It is not a matter of objective right or wrong there.
“The trolley problem is only relevant when something has to die… killing something because you think it’s lesser than you isn’t about saving someone. It’s pure cruelty. It doesn’t matter if you have a hierarchy when nothing has to die.
Your actually right value hierarchy doesn’t give a reason to harm someone, but it also doesn’t give a reason not to. It just shows me values can be ranked. You act according to what matters more to you. I value some animals less than the pleasure I get from taste. That doesn’t force me to eat them, but it allows me to act according to my priority values like convenience, or pleasure. Cruelty is only a value judgment. If your hierarchy puts animals higher than taste or survival, your actions follow that, just like mine follow mine.
“I value my own life over animals. I value my family’s lives over strangers. I don’t however use my attributed value level to justify killing people or animals.”
Your Right again Every choice depends on which value is higher. You don’t kill strangers because you value them enough not to. That still just value hierarchy that’s causing you not too.
Well then I guess you shouldn't be vegan. Case closed.
👍 I do want to know do you actually believe in objective morality if so why? I want to know because I do argue Christian’s on a similar basis and it would help
why should one value their pleasure and convenience over the cruel treatment of an animal for its entire life (and then the animal's death)? Almost all the animals you are going to eat in the next few months are in some crowded strip-lit warehouse with thousands of their brothers and sisters getting fattened up for the big day someone trusses them up and slaughters them - and this is all done to this animal for your cash. It's not just about the unpleasant moment of death. It's quite a morally-weighty thing to put on a trolley problem when there's 'tofu' on the other track.
It's easy to think "I am better than that bird" but are you really willing to inflict that level of cruelty on a bird just because you think you are more important? Like let's be honest, it's not a flavour sensation that you won't be able to cope without. Fat and salt and protein and spices will keep you happy.
Really, if you start to think about "doing the right thing" when you're eating, or "making ethical choices," this could even get you in the habit of doing it outside of just the supermarket and restaurant too. So stop making justifications for treating that bird shitty and instead say "I don't have to treat that bird in a bad way at all. Even if I could beat it at RDR2."
You seem like a good person with good intentions man.
why should one value their pleasure and convenience over the cruel treatment of an animal for its entire life (and then the animal's death)?
I can just as easily ask why shouldn’t they. And the answer depends on their values and goals if they want to be part of a function society well then John Locke argues you give up certain freedoms to be able to ahev the benefit of society. In fact I don’t think it’s a matter of should you have a value it’s a matter “if you” and “do you”.
Not everyone gets their values the same way. Some people build them through a framework, like society or religion. But my value of taste over animals is just how I feel about it it’s an emotivist value. I don’t need another reason to value them less. I just do. I can’t snap my fingers and suddenly start having a new found feeling for animals. I don’t get the same gut reaction I do when I see human gore or something it’s not intuitive to me that eating an animal is wrong.
I do think your feelings can define your values and values define morality and morality isn’t an objective truth but subjective.
It's easy to think "I am better than that bird" but are you really willing to inflict that level of cruelty on a bird just because you think you are more important? Like let's be honest, it's not a flavour sensation that you won't be able to cope without. Fat and salt and protein and spices will keep you happy.
I don’t think I’m better than the bird me and the bird have no more inherent value than each other. I Really, if you start to think about "doing the right thing" when you're eating, or "making ethical choices,"
The right thing doesn’t exist. There is no reason to believe it is not right or wrong truth there are refrence points and you can define a right and wrong but it’s not objective
so you cause what you see as unnecessary harm to chickens because you don't care (enough) about the harm the chickens face. I don't do it because I view behaving in a moral way as a personal goal. Why do you do it?
When you say "the right thing doesn't exist", this also applies to things like "being part of the Nazi death machine" or "buying and selling slaves," right? By saying "the right thing doesn't exist" then your whole ability to even suggest there is a right thing to do is meaningless.
So: The Nazis committed a genocide that involved the deliberate destruction of 6.5 million people based on their race or ethnicity, and they sincerely believed it was right. So can morality allow us to say this is wrong?
So do you think morality is objective seriously as in there really is Real moral truth and a real right and wrong.
But to answer you. I do it because of my hierarchy of values. I value my pleasure from taste over the lives of animals. That doesn’t make it objectively right or wrong, it just makes it consistent with my personal morality. I don’t have a gut reaction that animal death is bad the way I do with human death, so my values allow me to act this way.
on the personal level, my values don’t give animal life the same weight as my own pleasure or convenience.
That's incorrect. Vegans are those people. When you point out that vegans harm animals unnecessarily, i.e., for pleasure purposes, vegans don't ask what I can do to improve. They instead downplay the harm, find excuses and whatnot.
what do you do to improve on veganism, sir? You are vegan except for in a few isolated instances where the choice is between picking some cockles off the beach or eating an imported aubergine and quinoa salad? it's alright mate - if you eat vegan except for in exceptionally-rare edge cases that appear once in a lifetime, and only based on a true and honest least-harm approach, you can still come into the fold. I'll call you an honorary vegan.
What do you consider harming animals for pleasure purposes in such a way where vegans don't look to improve, anyway? It's a very specific claim - are you thinking of any examples? I thought "bugs on windshields" but then stumbled over "vegans don't look to improve."
Unnecessary consumption, be it food, electronics, or whatever.
Is that not an issue? Vegans can reduce it by limiting their driving to what's strictly necessary.
I do just that and limit my driving to what I neem strictly necessary. I also routinely minimise my consumption such as by routinely buying second-hand electronics. I wouldn't think this behaviour is unusual among vegans.
What is it that you deem as strictly necessary? For example, if your friend invited you to hang out and it's far away so you'll have to drive, is that necessary? Is it not vegan to drive there?
we all have to put limits on our morality, otherwise we'd be shivering in the cold because we gave everything away to someone colder. At some point we have to say 'that is enough, I have exerted my morality far enough, I only have one kidney left and dependants are on me who I also owe obligations to'. Where do you draw the line? Or have you ever even acknowledged the existence of the line?
Why am I so much more willing to put limits on my harmful behaviour than yours? Why do I find changing my diet in such a trivial way to avoid causing pain and suffering to an exponential number of sentient creatures to be worthwhile, yet you don't? Am I more moral or what's the deal?
What is your basis for morality?
Does that mean you will take that unnecessary trip? I mean you do realize that goes against what you said, right?
no, not really. I do realise that I asked you multiple questions and you evaded all of them. I explicitly said that we all cap our morals in some places, such as by not forcing your family to downsize into a smaller house so you can make a large charitable contribution. I just question why you cap your morality at such a low level, when you could make a trivial change.
Frankly I reckon if you started considering morality in your diet choices, it would help you become a more moral person overall. Ignoring morality and ethics in this regard is training your brain the wrong way.
Why should I answer your questions when you didn't answer mine?
This is not a competition on what I do vs what you do. Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere. You asked me what vegans can do to improve and based on the conversation so far, one thing you can do is to reevaluate what you consider as necessary if you want to improve. If you don't, then it's better to face the truth that you cause unnecessary harm for your pleasure. You'll have to decide if that's okay for you but it does you no good pretending otherwise.
Is this about crop deaths? Because as a vegan, I definitely won't let someone who has not taken one single step to reduce harm lecture me about insects dying because of my chocolate. Sorry.
Crop death is one of them. There are plenty of other issues. But this is the attitude that I'm talking about. If you care about animals then you would stop harming them yourself.
Yeah, let me just kill myself then so that I can avoid harming animals. People like you are ridiculous. Zero empathy towards animals, still munching on corpses and breastmilk, but vegans have to be absolutely perfect to have a valid argument against exploitation.
Are you going to die if you don't have your chocolate? Why is your desire for chocolate more important than the lives of animals?
Veganism is a stance against animal exploitation. You are arguing for the elimination of harm. Two different pairs of shoes plus using the Nirvana fallacy to avoid your personal responsibility ("if vegans cannot reach perfection, I won't stop exploiting animals"). I won't engage with you any further.
Of unnecessary harm which is directly in line with veganism.
The point is pretty simple. You know that you don't need chocolate. You know that buying chocolate contributes to killing animals. Why do you keep buying chocolate? Because you enjoy consuming it? Because that is more important for you than animals dying?
Veganism is about cruelty/exploitation, not eliminating harm. Veganism isn't about not going for a walk or cycle at the weekend.
How is it not cruel to knowingly cause unnecessary harm to animals?
You have hit the nail.on the head.
Vegans lecture people that killing animals for pleasure is not ok. Then you bring vegan pleasure products to the discussion like vegan candy, chocolate and wine and they have no rebuttal but to attack you for not being a vegan.
It is a joke, they say killing an animal to eat it for nutritional purposes is not ok, but killing animals for their unnecessary foods is ok. It doesnt come close to adding up
Using moral absolutism as a weapon to distract from your own inaction is a common strategy. By equating the systemic breeding and murder of billions of livestock animals to insects dying for vegan chocolate (or any food, for that matter) you're shifting the goal post to avoid any accountability on your part.
What veganism actually wants to achieve and that it is not an ethical framework aiming for harm elimination seems to be irrelevant to you. Which begs the question why you're discussing a topic you do not know the basics of.
It is 100 % not moral absolutism.
It is about vegans picking and choosing when their principles suit them.
Veganism is an ethical framework against animal exploitation. You not understanding veganism explains why you are using the Nirvana fallacy.
This has already been explained to you. Veganism is a stance against animal exploitation and using their products. It is a clearly outlined philosophy.
Meanwhile, non-vegans are consuming wine with animal blood, chocolate with the milk of a being who was sexually violated, and candy made from the processed bones and flesh of other animals.
You haven't outlined even one thing that you do about the exploitation and cruelty towards animals.
you have no problem with eating chocolate or pork
so you're not even arguing from a coherent position
the 'killing an animal for vegan candy' is just some 'crop deaths' argument that only works with an assumption vegan candy is unnecessary. So do you think candy is causing unnecessary harm when it is part of your own purchasing decisions? And if so, do you boycott candy?
Would you care to elaborate?
I'll give you an example. When i pointed out buying almonds is contributing to harming bees and using a large amount of water, the responses I got were it's okay, almonds are vegan. Or I want my almond milk. Or whataboutism like cows use more water. The response should be: I see the problem now. I'll avoid almonds and almond derived products.
You're missing the point here.
Vegans are all for exposing practices that mistreat animals. The issue is that non-vegans like yourself treat it as some kind of "gotcha" and completely ignore the animals that are exploited to produce cows milk, and other animal products. Do you abstain from almonds and animal products?
It's worth noting that we do not need to follow the california intentisive farming method to produce almonds, and many farming practices are out of vegans control. I've seen "what about the rabbits shot to protect crops" as a "gotcha" too.
So if animal exploitation and water usage is an issue, then sure, avoid almonds from california and especially cows milk when then there are far better plant-based alternatives.
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks
But if you're doing neither, then you're making an appeal to hypocrisy when you're not taking your own advice
And the main takeaway of being vegan. Avoid8ng the exploitation of animals.
Doubt that
I don't buy milk, of any kinds. Now what? Are you going to condemn almonds now? Or are you still making excuses? Remember, whatever I do has no impact on whether almonds are good or bad. You have to make your own judgement based on the products, not me. So what do you say?
Lol, what a load of crap. Are you responsible for mistreatment of animals when buying meat?
I've shown evidence that almonds can be grown without your concerns. I don't use almond milk either. That "meat" you buy, however, is exploitative and has a victim, many of whom are tortured.
Documentaries like Dominion expose cruel practices that are used to exploit animals. The footage was gathered by vegan activists.
Yes, it is a taking their life, so is any form of mistreatment like forcible impregnations, mutilation and other standard practices. These are covered in Dominion
Dominion: https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko?si=w4-rNlz6nJcan_B-
Nope, you didn’t. But it doesn't matter. You can get meat without killing an animal too. So what?
I call to condemn almonds because animals are exploited. You defend almonds so that pretty much tells me everything.
Abusing bees is a standard practice for almond farming. Do you understand logic?
Clearly, you can't follow what I'm saying.
There's a serious lack of consistency when you feign compassion for bees but when animals are slaughtered it's "so what"
And no, almonds originate from Europe and they do not need to be grown like the intensive california model.
Read it again.
You can theoretically farm almonds without animal abuse.
You can also theoretically farm meat without animal abuse.
But that's not how they are farmed right now. So why is it bad to buy one and not the other. Any more help you need?
So you would say that because you value your pleasure over the lives of certain individuals, it is acceptable for you to turn those individuals into sandwiches.
Suppose my neighbor Steve decided to turn Swedish humans into sandwiches. Steve says he values his pleasure over the lives of Swedish people. He goes on to say that:
In your view, is it acceptable for Steve to farm Swedish people and turn them into sandwiches?
Steve is a Swegan because:
You're gonna get me into trouble. You might convince a nonvegan reading this to actually start farming Swedes.
Oh god, don't show this to Helen. She's probably in this thread already.
Damn, youre so threatened by others' arguments that you call them out by name now?
Sure. That's why.
I'm genuinely flattered. :)
You should be. You being from Norway where it is absolutely impossible to be vegan because everyone would starve without pasture-fed livestock lives rent-free in my head.
That's fucking hilarious.
And she keeps doing it.
😭😭😭
Which alternative foods should we produce instead in your opinion?
Swedes.
In other words, you are well aware that no alternatives exist.
Lets not forget that synthetic fertilizer technology has a long way to go. Steve relies on the byproducts from swedes to fertilize his bean crops. ipso facto something something - eat a swede.
You need to understand my stance first. I reject moral realism and objective morality entirely. The closest label to my view is probably emotivism. If you are implying that there is some real, mind independent moral truth, I disagree.
𝐈 𝐚𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. 𝐈 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 “𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬.” 𝐈𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥. At the societal level, I think ethics only function when four things are present: values, consensus, enforcement, and viability. Those are the evolutionary requirements for any moral system to actually work in the real world.
You said.
“𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐬, 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐰𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬,”
you are assuming I am committed to values that I am not.
I do value most human life, but I do not value all human lives equally. If Steve’s values directly clash with mine, then yes, on a personal level I am against what he is doing. Not because his values are actually objectively wrong, but because they do not align with mine. From my reference point, they are wrong. That is all that means.
When you say,
“𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬. 𝐒𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐒𝐰𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐰𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬?” It depends on the reference point being used and is it personal morality or social ethics.
If you are asking about objective moral truth, then in terms of personal ethics Steve turning his neighbors into sandwiches is no more morally right or wrong than someone choosing to eat vegan meals. If Steve actually thinks eating humans is wrong then by his own standards he would be wrong. If he did not, then it simply is what it is. Moral truth does not exist independently of reference points. And on a personal level he defines his right and wrong.
However, from the standpoint of societal ethics, the answer changes. If Steve lives in a society like Sweden, which has shared values, laws, and enforcement against murder, then he is ethically wrong in that society specifically. Not universally wrong, but socially wrong within that system. And realistically in any evolutionarily viable society.
I also want to be clear that something being socially ethical does not mean you personally have to agree with it. That is why moral relativism is not a flaw but a necessary feature of social evolution.
What counts as morally right at the societal level depends on the values of the group that meets those four conditions.
For example, in many Islamic societies, child marriage exists and is widely accepted. I personally think it is wrong. But those societies still meet the criteria of value, consensus, enforcement, and viability. Within those regions, I think the practice is socially ethical, even if I strongly disagree with it.
This is not about whether I like their values. It is about describing how ethics actually function. I may not like that cancer exists, but that does not change the fact that it does. In the same way, I may not like certain moral systems, but that does not change the reality of how social ethics emerge and operate.
Moral relativism allows a person with a different subset of values to disagree and fight against values that clash against their own. You as a vegan are able to rewrite your society’s moral code in fact you guys are trying to reach the 2nd stage of obtaining consensus.
You draw a distinction for what you're calling societal ethics, which seems to be a simple argumentum ad populum.
This is a great demonstration of the ridiculous conclusions we must accept once we decide that morality is nothing more than personal preferences.
For the above fallacy to be applicable, we should have enough evidence that indeed a moral truth exists independently of human opinion. Which is what OP challenges. If, on the other hand, morality is just a byproduct of society, the "populum" is actually the relevant source of truth.
What is ridiculous here? It doesn't imply that you can eat Steve. It only implies that your "ought not" stems from a societal obligation, not a universal one.
Objective morality has no substantial evidence that im aware of.
This is copy n paste of a different response btw
It’s not ad populum. I’m not saying something is objectively right just because people believe it. I’m saying that in a society, what counts as right or wrong comes from the values of the majority. Those values determine how people treat things, who gets priority, and what rules stick around.
You mistake this for ad populum because it’s based on what people believe, but that’s not the same. The very nature of morality is subjective so its only basis is our values. None of these values are actually an objective truth . Ad populum claims truth comes from popularity. I’m not claiming truth. Im saying the values a society holds shape what is considered right and wrong socially. You can disagree with those values, and they’re not universally true, but they still function as the what is and isn’t permissible in that society.
I would say the nature of morality is inter-subjective. If you are the last human on earth, you would not have any obligation or "ought" beside what you think. In the context of society tough, you have moral obligations usually even enforced. But to be honest, I am not sure if you are replying to me or the guy above 🤔
I actually agree I don’t know much about inter subjectivity so I can’t speak on that. I think morality is a social construct so the society defines what that is not that it has any real objective truth to it but it’s more like how words are defined they don’t really have anything else going for them.
Alr sent this to the other guy but if the shoe fits:
I hope you can see how ironic your comment is you start by using a fallacy to prove a fallacy, If you don’t believe me. Your claim is my argument is a ad populum fallacy, and to quote your own words you say “Just because a society values X doesn’t make it true or moral.” All of this to argue against a position I never even held in the first place.
I never said social agreement makes something true or objectively moral. I explicitly deny that from the very first lines of the post. If you think otherwise, your homework is simple: scroll up and read the first sentences of my post under prologue and look I’ll make it easy for you, you don’t even have to scroll up because I’m gunna quote what I laid out right here.
“I don’t think morality is objective. Right and wrong do not have universal truth and depend on a reference point.”
“Right and wrong on the social level is about whose morals won the battle, not whose are true, because there is no truth.”
“Society’s morals are relative and subjective, not based on a fixed standard”
I’m describing how morality functions, not claiming it has objective truth. Other social constructs have similar logic such as money. A dollar isn’t inherently valuable. Objectively it’s just a piece of paper and a quarter is just metal. There’s no “truth” inside a dollar that makes it worth anything. Its value becomes functionally real only because enough people agree to treat it that way.
Take Monopoly money. It isn’t real currency right now. But if 80 percent of the world woke up tomorrow and treated Monopoly money as having purchasing power, then functionally it would be money within that system. Money doesn’t have value because it’s true. It has value because enough people act like it does. Morality is the same. Values don’t become right because a majority votes on them. They become enforced, normalized, and lived by because enough people share them. This is observable.
Cool. There is no right and wrong.
As is always the case with these types of arguments, you are disputing veganism to the same extent as every other normative ethical position.
I encourage you to share your same argument with advocates for racial justice - tell them that the choice to discriminate based on skin color is no more right or wrong than the choice not to. Or go find a children's advocacy center and tell them that the decision to abuse children is no more right or wrong than the decision not to.
But you didn't. You saved this argument for the vegans, presumably because you didn't want to engage with discussions about animal ethics. And sure enough, here we are, not talking about animal ethics.
Are you a moral realist? Do you believe in objective morality it seems you do based on your responses.
It’s not ad populum. I’m not saying something is objectively right just because people believe it. I’m saying that in a society, what counts as right or wrong comes from the values of the majority. Those values determine how people treat things, who gets priority, and what rules stick around.
You mistake this for ad populum because it’s based on what people believe, but that’s not the same. The very nature of morality is subjective so its only basis is our values. None of these values are actually an objective truth . Ad populum claims truth comes from popularity. I’m not claiming truth. Im saying the values a society holds shape what is considered right and wrong socially. You can disagree with those values, and they’re not universally true, but they still function as the what is and isn’t permissible in that society.
Oh, so turning Swedish people into sandwiches isn't right or wrong... it simply counts as right or wrong.
But I get it. I've asked you, "do you think it's okay to turn Swedish people into sandwiches", and you've answered, "here's how society can influence what is morally acceptable." It's an answer to a question no-one is asking, a distraction from your actual answer, which is that there is no right or wrong.
As is always the case with these types of arguments, you are disputing veganism to the same extent as every other normative ethical position.
I encourage you to share your same argument with advocates for racial justice - tell them that the choice to discriminate based on skin color is no more right or wrong than the choice not to. Or go find a children's advocacy center and tell them that the decision to abuse children is no more right or wrong than the decision not to.
But you didn't. You saved this argument for the vegans, presumably because you didn't want to engage with discussions about animal ethics. And sure enough, here we are, not talking about animal ethics.
Nej.
You've just made a bunch of claims about values without providing any actual reasoning. None of your arguments against veganism hold any more weight than me saying I'm going to kill my annoying neighbour because I value my peace over their life
My position isn’t against veganism just that it has not basis to say its values are objectively right or wrong.
I couldn’t think of the right title really it was about the ethical framework I wanted to talked about. The reason I said why should I be a vegan because if the premise was that there is objective morality well I simply think that basis is not reasonable.
I don’t think there’s any reason to accept a moral framework such as veganism or any other except on two grounds what you feel, or what’s enforced. That’s it. Different moral frameworks draw different moral borders. By that I mean they define who or what actually counts in their system as morally applicable. Every framework has a crowned group or groups, and there’s always a hierarchy. Things aren’t valued equally, even when people pretend they are.
Those borders exist because value is limited. And I mean this in the sense Your feelings are limited. Your cognition is limited. You literally can’t value everything because of those two things. 𝐀𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. From his internal perspective, he’s doing everything “right” by maximizing the well being of the only thing he can genuinely value, himself. His borders are extremely narrow, but they’re still borders.
Different frameworks just have different border sizes. And I think If you want to be part of a society, you give up certain freedoms and operate within a shared framework to get a net benefit. You can keep personal values, but you agree to the rules of the system. That’s why I probably lean closer to Locke.
And I seriously think there are multiple ways to be moral, the same way there are multiple ways to win a chess game. Not objectively true ways, just internally coherent ones.
Unlike racists or sexists, I don’t think I’m objectively superior. They usually ground that belief in biology or facts about the world. What I’m talking about is closer to preferring chocolate over vanilla. There’s nothing objective making chocolate better. It’s just how I feel.
I understand that your point is largely that morality is subjective and defined by culture, but at what point do you (you personally) stop and think about your own needs and desires? Veganism isn't exactly popular. We don't make up the majority of culture (at least not in the US/Canada/UK). Everyone here has dealt with weird comments and ostracism to some degree.
I go by my own moral compass in all things, not just veganism. I'm Indigenous and my community doesn't support my veganism, and the vegans don't support me engaging in my Indigenous religion to heal from colonization because it involves animal products. I boycott Israel and my area has a lot of Zionist support, so I have been harassed for that, but I keep doing it because I'm against genocide (of anyone!) I'm Canadian and we're all boycotting America right now because we don't want annexation, but of course the Americans who believe Trump are profiling Canadians and have turned against us. None of these things make me question my morals because they are mine, not theirs.
It sounds like you just care a lot about peer pressure.
I think I do care about consensus I think it’s one of the pillars of what makes functional right and wrong in a society but not an objective truth or objective right and wrong. Which is distinct
I think all we have is that when it comes to societal ethics not objective morality
I'm gonna be real, that is a horrifying way to live.
Literacy is plummeting worldwide but especially in English-speaking countries, people are more frequently running to ChatGPT and other AI to talk to and this is creating epidemics like AI psychosis, generative AI is ruining industries and careers and making the economy worse. Ozempic over-use is making eating disorders trendy again, the normalization of eating way too much meat for every meal and not every few days like we evolved to do is causing more cancer (plus the way it's processed before and after death). Israel has worldwide financial and moral support, people keep visiting various fascist countries and contributing to their economies while their politics become more dangerous because of whatever frivolous reason they need to be there for a week.... What about every country where things like being gay or trans are illegal?
Is any of this functional to you?? Do these all sound like the "right" way to do things?? Why do you put so much trust in consensus?
I’m African American btw I understand the implications
So your point is that it’s horrifying so what. Cancer is horrifying are you going to stop believing it isn’t real because it horrifies us, or because it makes us feel bad.
And in the same way just because you can feel bad or horrified by the implications of subjective morality and the lack of objectively doesn’t change the fact that objective moral standards have no substantial evidence to believe there true it’s like arguing for god. Why believe it.
So yes your right slavery or racism or whatever isn’t actually objectively right but it isn’t objectively wrong either there just is no reason to believe there is an objective truth about these things to begin with.
Sorry, I don't know what implications you're referring to or how they relate to you being African-American? Did you respond to the right person? I didn't bring up slavery or racism
Yea wrong person
so you can see how it's at least in very questionable and dubious territory, but it's culturally-accepted so you don't care. Your morality is bound by nothing other than your own tastes, and with a floor of simply what other people say. I say vegan is morally optimal, you say "yes I can see how it might look to be, but omnivorism is morally-acceptable in the West, and nobody's getting on my case about it other than you guys."
You can't refute the claim that factory farming is an unnecessary harm, you know you can get all your nutrients elsewhere, you agree with the whole argument, you just think that you can still call yourself a moral person despite engaging in unnecessarily harmful behaviour. Because everyone else says it's okay, so you can simply say 'morality is ambiguous and everyone says it's fine so I will continue paying someone to torture chickens."
would your moral argument have applied in slavery / genocide days? Seems like all of it still applies, really. "Morality is ambiguous, and in fact most people say what I am doing is okay." You can do better than this, right? You can actually be moral. Aim for the skies bro, I believe in you. Try to do what is optimal and not just the lowest standards of current societal acceptability
So I guess you don't really have a moral position at all. It's just an argument about your preferences. there's no moral basis to begin with. Nobody has ever made a moral error, and you can never say any society was immoral. Slavery was fine because it was fine, and then it was bad because it was bad.
I say, some harms matter, even if society disagrees with me. Anyway I do think this whole "morality? what's all that about then? We can instead talk about how a society achieves viable morality" argument is the best one for factory farming / slavery / genocide / anything an immoral society does from the position of a person in that immoral society, so we agree on that.
You’re correct it’s not an argument against veganism. I’m pretty sure I already sent you this so disregard it’s easier to send this explanation to anyone who might wonder.
I couldn’t think of the right title So you’re right it really was about the ethical framework I wanted to talked about. The reason I said why should I be a vegan because if the premise was that there is objective morality well I simply think that basis is not reasonable.
I don’t think there’s any reason to accept a moral framework such as veganism or any other except on two grounds what you feel, or what’s enforced. That’s it. Different moral frameworks draw different moral borders. By that I mean they define who or what actually counts in their system as morally applicable. Every framework has a crowned group or groups, and there’s always a hierarchy. Things aren’t valued equally, even when people pretend they are.
Those borders exist because value is limited. And I mean this in the sense Your feelings are limited. Your cognition is limited. You literally can’t value everything because of those two things. 𝐀𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. From his internal perspective, he’s doing everything “right” by maximizing the well being of the only thing he can genuinely value, himself. His borders are extremely narrow, but they’re still borders.
Different frameworks just have different border sizes. And I think If you want to be part of a society, you give up certain freedoms and operate within a shared framework to get a net benefit. You can keep personal values, but you agree to the rules of the system. That’s why I probably lean closer to Locke.
And I seriously think there are multiple ways to be moral, the same way there are multiple ways to win a chess game. Not objectively true ways, just internally coherent ones.
Unlike racists or sexists, I don’t think I’m objectively superior. They usually ground that belief in biology or facts about the world. What I’m talking about is closer to preferring chocolate over vanilla. There’s nothing objective making chocolate better. It’s just how I feel.
so what is your internally-coherent justification for ongoing financial support for factory farming?
In order to answer this question, we need to know more about your values.
I have a clarifying question about this section that might help:
Why do you value these pleasures over the lives of animals? What is your reasoning for your pleasure being worth more?
“Why do you value these pleasures over the lives of animals? What is your reasoning for your pleasure being worth more?
Your question is misframed because it assumes values require justification beyond themselves and I disagree.
I think values are axiomatic. think of An atom or a quark you can’t really break them down further than what they are. I think values themselves are axioms. but if a value has a logical framework prescribed to it, you can try and challenge the logic that got them to the value, not the value itself.
Think of the nazis their moral framework was wrong not because of the values themselves but the logic, their premise was that the Jews were subhuman and they were a superior race. We know genetically all humans are of the same species homosapien all other actual races died out such as homoerectus. Their framework was scientifically illogical.
Like I explained earlier my value for my pleasure over animal lives is an axiom, I think the reasoning for how I obtained those values is probably a mixture of social conditioning and personal preference.
But that also applies to the value chocolate ice cream over vanilla. You can list all the taste, texture and ingredients as a reasoning as to why you like chocolate… the person next to me could agree with all of those descriptive reasonings and still have a different value.
Okay, but your axioms aren't "just because," right? It's the premises, the reasoning, behind your values that I am attempting to question. If you don't have reasons for believing what you believe, then your position doesn't have any weight.
Would you like to work with just social conditioning and personal preference? I think these can be examined, but if you want to formalize a framework then you may do so as well.
Not all values have beliefs or frameworks attached to them my value or hrirarchy of animal to humans is simply just based on how I feel I think that is the raw nature of what makes a value a value. Axiom is simply the closest word to it that I can think of you can’t really reduce a feeling about something down to anything that would be treatable. for example you may value chocolate ice cream over vanilla I’m sure you wouldn’t call that value a belief or a framework. It simply is that what it is you feel is the rawest your values go too.
Sorry just read this
I am not going to try and convince you, because in order to do that I would have to deconstruct all of your metaethical positions. But I will just say this: Imagine you live in 1840, and you own slaves. Now rewrite your comment but replace "eating animals" with "owning slaves". If you are fine with that - that is if you are okay with the idea that owning slaves is permissible as long as the culture accepts it at the time, then I would say you are reprehensible, but free to hold that position. But, if like most people, you think this is not the case, you have good reason to rethink your reasoning here.
I don’t believe in objective morality. If someone claims it exists, I want to see the proof.
I’m African American if I lived back then, I would have been a slave. Personally, I think slavery is wrong, but that’s my moral value. But to me slavery is no more objectively “right” or “wrong” than any other moral value. What counts as “right” or “wrong” socially is determined by which values have the most consensus in a society. Society enforces rules based on shared values, not universal truths.
I do think moral frameworks can be evaluated logically. Take racist frameworks, like Nazi philosophy, which claim their race is superior. That’s scientifically false we’re all the same species and 99.9% genetically identical so their framework itself is logically flawed.
Even if the framework of slavery were internally consistent, social rules like slavery would still be treated as acceptable within that female . That wouldn’t make it objectively right wrong but I would agree socially it would be permissible according to that society’s values. Social ethics are shaped by consensus, while personal moral values are what an individual believes is right or wrong, none of them have inherent objective authority.
Well mammals and birds are relatively intelligent animals, they are able to feel pain, they have a fear of death, it doesn't change whether you have moralities or no.
But you don't care what they feel, it's okay, I can't make you care. I'm pretty sure you would eat humans, if it wasn't judged by society
Objective morality doesn’t exist do you agree?
I’m an emotivist.(you have google)
“Eating humans” You’re assuming values I don’t hold I value human life enough to not eat it but only because I feel anything certain way about human death and destruction.
I know I don’t have this feeling for animals and I’m definitely not objectively wrong for it
"Convince me to be vegan (seeing animals as worth of not being killed for unnecessary pleasure). Here's my background: I do think killing animals for unnecessary pleasure is not a moral issue."
What were you expecting from the replies, OP? If you want to debate the ethics of veganism, you can do that, but you cannot convince someone with logic to have compassion for someone else. Just like I can't convince a man who tells me he sees himself as superior to women that he should treat women as his equals through logic. You either believe someone is worthy of respect or you don't, they are axioms, there's no logical argument for why you should be compassionate towards animals, just like there's no logical argument for why you shouldn't be a homophobe or a racist.
I couldn’t think of the right title So you’re right it really was about the ethical framework I wanted to talked about. The reason I said why should I be a vegan because if the premise was that there is objective morality well I simply think that basis is not reasonable.
I don’t think there’s any reason to accept a moral framework such as veganism or any other except on two grounds what you feel, or what’s enforced. That’s it. Different moral frameworks draw different moral borders. By that I mean they define who or what actually counts in their system as morally applicable. Every framework has a crowned group or groups, and there’s always a hierarchy. Things aren’t valued equally, even when people pretend they are.
Those borders exist because value is limited. And I mean this in the sense Your feelings are limited. Your cognition is limited. You literally can’t value everything because of those two things. 𝐀𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦, 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬. 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. From his internal perspective, he’s doing everything “right” by maximizing the well being of the only thing he can genuinely value, himself. His borders are extremely narrow, but they’re still borders.
Different frameworks just have different border sizes. And I think If you want to be part of a society, you give up certain freedoms and operate within a shared framework to get a net benefit. You can keep personal values, but you agree to the rules of the system. That’s why I probably lean closer to Locke.
And I seriously think there are multiple ways to be moral, the same way there are multiple ways to win a chess game. Not objectively true ways, just internally coherent ones.
Unlike racists or sexists, I don’t think I’m objectively superior. They usually ground that belief in biology or facts about the world. What I’m talking about is closer to preferring chocolate over vanilla. There’s nothing objective making chocolate better. It’s just how I feel.
are you only that of what society tells you & hold no personal integrity to what you believe is right & wrong?
There are 8 billion people in this earth with no substantial evidence of objective morals. The reason I mentioned that number is do you really think 8 billion people all have the same idea of right and wrong. If there is no objective moral truth what determines right and wrong. My answer is nothing
This is the ad populum fallacy just because a society values human and pets>other animals does not make it true/moral, mammals have the same or similar sentience and emotional depth as us as we are mammals too we both share amydala, pfc etc. Also if you think societies picking their own moral values is correct then do you think that the hollocaust was ok as at that time the Germans valued their happiness and fear over the lives of jews and disabled people.
I hope you can see how ironic your comment is you start by using a fallacy to prove a fallacy, If you don’t believe me. Your claim is my argument is a ad populum fallacy, and to quote your own words you say “Just because a society values X doesn’t make it true or moral.” All of this argue against a position I never even held in the first place.
I never said social agreement makes something true or objectively moral. I explicitly deny that from the very first lines of the post. If you think otherwise, your homework is simple: scroll up and read the first sentences of my post under prologue and look I’ll make it easy for you, you don’t even have to scroll up because I’m gunna quote what I laid out right here.
“I don’t think morality is objective. Right and wrong do not have universal truth and depend on a reference point.”
“Right and wrong on the social level is about whose morals won the battle, not whose are true, because there is no truth.”
“Society’s morals are relative and subjective, not based on a fixed standard”
I’m describing how morality functions, not claiming it has objective truth. Other social constructs have similar logic such as money. A dollar isn’t inherently valuable. Objectively it’s just a piece of paper and a quarter is just metal. There’s no “truth” inside a dollar that makes it worth anything. Its value becomes functionally real only because enough people agree to treat it that way.
Take Monopoly money. It isn’t real currency right now. But if 80 percent of the world woke up tomorrow and treated Monopoly money as having purchasing power, then functionally it would be money within that system. Money doesn’t have value because it’s true. It has value because enough people act like it does. Morality is the same. Values don’t become right because a majority votes on them. They become enforced, normalized, and lived by because enough people share them. This is observable.
What pleasures that you gain give reason to support practices that involve slavery, mental and physical torture, and murder of another being?
If I told you that I enjoy watching sports, but the sport involves slavery of the players involved, would you support my continued support of the sport?
We are talking about Moral Right and Wrong here correct?
You’re trying to bake your conclusion into the question. You’re treating words like slavery, torture, and murder as if they’re automatically wrong no matter who they’re applied to. That only works if morality is objective or if all beings deserve the same moral weight by default. I reject that idea.
Your slavery analogy only works if you assume moral weight transfers automatically from humans to animals. It doesn’t. I’m not saying pleasure alone justifies everything. I’m saying actions follow from a hierarchy of values and borders. Who the harm happens to matters. Humans sit high on my hierarchy because of autonomy, social trust, and keeping society functional. That’s why your example fails.
If humans were enslaved for entertainment, I wouldn’t support it because it’s in contrast to my personal feelings/values I already hold, not because it’s actually objectively wrong. Animals don’t sit in the same place in my value hierarchy, you’re treating the two as the same that’s why I said you are just assuming your conclusion or at the very least assuming I hold to your meta ethics.
"We are talking about Moral Right and Wrong here correct?"
Not yet, I just asked two questions. One is a personal question based on the facts of the matter: animals are forcibly conceived, tortured, and enslaved for their use in our food systems. Then, they are killed. These are descriptive facts of the circumstances that occur. I am not making prescriptions about them just yet. Although technically I should not claim murder and I should instead claim that it is killing, since murder is unlawful killing and the law often times coincides with ethical claims. That doesn't take away from the spirit of my point, which is to just ask two questions. The first is about the enslavement and killing of animals and what pleasure supersedes these facts in your view.
The second question is about a hypothetical sport that involves the same things in a human example.
"You’re trying to bake your conclusion into the question"
I haven't even made an argument for there to be a conclusion.
"You’re treating words like slavery, torture, and murder as if they’re automatically wrong no matter who they’re applied to. "
That applies to murder but my intention with the question is solely descriptive, I can tell you that much. For the sake of the conversation and to avoid confusion on your part, imagine these terms are intended to be descriptive (which was my goal).
"Your slavery analogy only works if you assume moral weight transfers automatically from humans to animals. It doesn’t."
Sure, so we are going to need a symmetry breaker for that. What is the symmetry breaker that destroys any moral considerations we give to humans and not to animals?
"If humans were enslaved for entertainment, I wouldn’t support it because it’s in contrast to my personal feelings/values I already hold, not because it’s actually objectively wrong."
Why wouldn't you support it? What values exclude that type of sport here?
The symmetry breaker is literally my values themselves. I’m An emotivist There’s nothing inherent in a human or an animal that makes one matter more it’s just what I feel. I don’t value human torture for sport because it goes against how I feel, but I don’t feel the same way about animals, so I don’t assign them the same weight.
Asking me why I wouldn’t support human torture is like asking someone why they like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla. There isn’t a deeper reason it’s just how it makes me feel. That’s the whole point of emotivism moral judgments come from feelings, not some objective property.
Also, part of why I care more about humans is probably evolutionary we’re wired to value each other more, to build social groups, and to survive together. That doesn’t make it “objectively” right, but it’s probably one of the true reasons these feelings exist in the first place.
"The symmetry breaker is literally my values themselvess. I’m An emotivist There’s nothing inherent in a human or an animal that makes one matter more it’s just what I feel. I don’t value human torture for sport because it goes against how I feel, but I don’t feel the same way about animals, so I don’t assign them the same weight."
Let me explain my position then. By my lights, all the valuable characteristics that grant moral considerations (I'm not even getting into meta-ethical theories like emotivism here, just standard descriptive facts regarding what people say they care/value and what those properties typically are) in humans like sentience or dignity as a living being exist in animals. I see no good reason to exclude the animals we do in industrial farming (cows, pigs, chickens, etc.) when an answer cannot be given to the question regarding a symmetry breaker between humans (and even other animals we do extend moral considerations to, like dogs in western countries) and non-human animals (pigs, chickens, etc.).
Telling me about your meta-ethical position and that the symmetry breaker is the moral intuitions or feelings you have is non-informative to me. Morals are typically understood as reason-giving. If you grant that as an emotivist, then what reasons can be cited for these moral intuitions you hold to? Right now, the answer I am getting is that the difference between animals we treat terribly and humans that we do not treat terribly is because I feel like it is ok to treat those animals terribly/permitted to treat them terribly and not humans. That is just tautological.
"is like asking someone why they like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla. There isn’t a deeper reason it’s just how it makes me feel. That’s the whole point of emotivism moral judgments come from feelings, not some objective property."
I'm not contesting that, just interested in the moral intuitions since there is more at-stake here than simply ice cream. I am aware of the emotivist thesis, but what is it, if it can be put into words, that motivates these emotions?
"why I care more about humans is probably evolutionary we’re wired to value each other more, to build social groups, and to survive together. That doesn’t make it “objectively” right, but it’s probably one of the true reasons these feelings exist in the first place."
This is what the answer I was looking for would look like. Some internal motivation for the emotions that you believe drive these feelings.
To me, I can grant all of those but still extend non-human animals into the umbrella of moral consideration. I see no reason why these evolutionary facts or cultural upbringing or any other thing would exclude animals in such a way such as to treat them the way we do. Almost nothing can justify the treatment in my view.
You're on the right track about morality not being objective, but you are overshooting here.
You agree that in order to have a conversation, we need to agree on the parameters and have some sort of equal conceptions, eg. pain is bad, pleasure is good, living is better than being killed, etc.. These are subjective and shaped by culture, that much is true.
My response to your problem would be that you mistake being subjective/culturally accepted means it is "good". The immediate problem I have with your morality argument is that "good" in this context means "permissable". But I don't agree with this for two main reasons:
being permissable doesn't mean the morals in question can't be wrong. For example, the hierarchy between species contradicts equity and logic, both concepts that are generally widely considered correct. Equity because it is culturally accepted to be morally good and logic because it is considered to be imperative. To see the problem, look into "name the trait". You cannot logically refute this argument without conceding that equity is not morally good.
You are your own moral system, regardless of the society you exist in. Being capable of individual thought, You must have at least some morals that go against the consensus unless you are literally an uncritical, perfect reflection of your environment. Why not just choose to believe in something?
I’m just reading this now can you send me something random so I know to come back
Sure
Important_Nobody1230, we know it's you. Why do you need multiple accounts to post here? I don't think that this is allowed.
Since morality is subjective, and this post is about your position, can you detail more about what you do believe morally. Things like, according to you:
Test your values by going plant based for a month. It's easy to rationalize something we are already doing. So stop doing it and see if your values stay the same.
Tldr: OP thinks they are entitled to turn anyone they don't like into sandwiches.
If I chose my foods based on pleasure only I would probably only consume wine and potato chips. Only because that would probably kill me I rather choose to eat fish, meat, dairy, vegetables, fruit..
You miss the point again, vegans think that if one species is put above food source, all animals have that status. Omnivores have a hierarchy of animals, where pigs are for food and urangutans and dogs for protection. Both values are held side by side. And it does not mean he despises pigs, providing food for people is very respectable.
Why do you keep commenting directly to OP in response to other comments? There is a reply button under every comment.
You’re missing the point he made. Swedes are humans, therefore they are more important than his eating preference. Cows and pigs are less important so they do not come before his eating preference. The problem of vegans is that they cannot understand this value difference, and therefore the difference between eating pork and cannibalism
what about an orangutan or an endangered rhino? where do they come re: your eating preferences? Or maybe a particularly-tasty human in a vegetative state vs a stranger's pet tunafish - where do they come in the hierarchy
It's so weird you would outright admit you think torturing some KFC chicken comes below your eating preferences. Cos you wouldn't do it yourself. You gotta outsource it