Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zeusthecat

Is It Wrong To Eat Meat?

Recommended Posts

Holy shit, what did I miss?

 

Regarding Tycho's posts, I think they have been pretty fascinating and consistent. I can see how some of the posts may come off as absurd or needlessly confrontational to some but reading them closely, I really don't think Tycho is intentionally being an asshole to anyone here and following the logic in those posts, it really is pretty difficult to come up with a solid counter-argument.

 

My stance on this topic though is a bit different. First, I personally do prefer to present my opinion in a way that is less confrontational (so yeah, I guess I think tone policing is kind of important). The whole point of having an argument or debate in my opinion is to try to convince the person you are arguing against that your argument is more sound than theirs. I like to think I'm right about the things I argue about and if someone confronts me with a counter-argument and is an asshole about it, I am more likely to spend my efforts frivolously defending my position rather than considering their points and challenging my own position. Whether it is this topic, gamergate, feminism, or any of the other things we discuss on these forums, I think it is important to recognize that when people get overly aggressive about hammering a point home, it can often do more harm than it does good when it comes to convincing naysayers to reconsider their position. Based on some of the responses to Tycho's posts in this thread, it seems that this is indeed the case which is unfortunate because had the conversation been framed a little bit differently, there probably would have been a better chance of other people remaining engaged in the conversation and getting more out of it.

 

Regardless, I think the conversation has been fascinating and I am glad to see that some of the topics I had touched on earlier were brought up and expanded upon much more coherently than I probably would have been capable of.

 

Personally, I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to recognize that it is wrong to kill animals and eat them but at the same time be unwilling to give up meat. I am more interested in convincing people to agree that killing animals and eating them is wrong than than I am in actually convince them to stop doing it. I mean, it would be awesome if someone were convinced enough by these arguments to completely stop eating meat but I recognize that we live in a society where that is really fucking tough to do and I would absolutely not expect that of anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Does Tycho have a moral obligation to try to stop the genocide of non-human animals?
  • Is it immoral for Tycho to befriend those who contribute to it? Eagerly, even?
  • Would Tycho be friends with someone that, fully aware of what it was, ate veal once?
  • Would Tycho be friends with someone that, fully aware of what it was, ate a human baby once?
  • Can Tycho in good faith continue on message boards that contain so many such unrepentant people?
  • Is Tycho a sympathizer?
  • In not freeing non-human animals from every pet store he sees, is he acting in conflict with his ethics?
  • Would Tycho be justified in the murder of key figures in the meat industry?
  • Would Tycho be justified in the murder of key members of the Nazi party in the 1930's?
  • Would Tycho be justified in stealing slaves from a slave owner in 1815 in order to set them free?
  • Would Tycho be justified in stealing pets from a pet owner in order to set them free?
  • Would Tycho be justified in murdering a slave owner in 1815?
  • Would Tycho be justified in the murder of a pet owner in 2015?
  • What if that pet owner treated their pets well?
  • What if that slave owner treated their slaves well?
  • Has Tycho ever accidentally killed a non-human animal in his life? If so, how did he repent?
  • If so, does he still think about this non-human animal?

 

These are things I thought about reading this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had decided to stay out of this thread, but there's something about the speciesism line of argument that's been bugging me (I've been reading and reflecting, even if not participating).

The core idea is that all animals lives should be valued as equally as possible and that suffering should be minimized (and suffering can mean several things, ranging from the immediate physical suffering to denial of future enjoyment of life) and that needless death at the hands of moral/ethical humans should be eliminated.

And given the repeated comparisons in this thread to racism, then obviously this means that all animals within a species should be treated as equally as possible, with a goal of eliminating as much suffering and needless death as possible.

How does adhering to that model of ethics not lead one to conclude that abortion needs to be banned in all cases except where the mother's life is in clear danger? It's the needless ending of a life, in deference to the preference of another animal capable of ethical reasoning that results in long term suffering (denial of life) and possibly immediate suffering (depending on when the procedure is performed).

Edited to add: I'm not trying to do some crazy derail here, I'm genuinely curious. One thing about thinking about ethical models and whether they are a fit for you is to extend the logic and structure of them over to other scenarios where they also map out, and see if they still hold weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had decided to stay out of this thread, but there's something about the speciesism line of argument that's been bugging me (I've been reading and reflecting, even if not participating).

The core idea is that all animals lives should be valued as equally as possible and that suffering should be minimized (and suffering can mean several things, ranging from the immediate physical suffering to denial of future enjoyment of life) and that needless death at the hands of moral/ethical humans should be eliminated.

And given the repeated comparisons in this thread to racism, then obviously this means that all animals within a species should be treated as equally as possible, with a goal of eliminating as much suffering and needless death as possible.

How does adhering to that model of ethics not lead one to conclude that abortion needs to be banned in all cases except where the mother's life is in clear danger? It's the needless ending of a life, in deference to the preference of another animal capable of ethical reasoning that results in long term suffering (denial of life) and possibly immediate suffering (depending on when the procedure is performed).

Edited to add: I'm not trying to do some crazy derail here, I'm genuinely curious. One thing about thinking about ethical models and whether they are a fit for you is to extend the logic and structure of them over to other scenarios where they also map out, and see if they still hold weight.

 

I would answer that even if it is not a danger to the mother's life, the physical and psychological impact of carrying and giving birth to a child is huge. So in that case, I guess you are weighing the physical/psychological impact to the mother versus the right of a partially developed life form to live. In my opinion, the impact to the mother deserves much more consideration than the right of that partially formed life to live.

 

I like what you are getting at though because it hints at something that also bothers me about the speciesist (?) argument. If we agree that all life forms are equal, then does that mean swatting a mosquito is the moral equivalent of killing a dog? Everything about me as a human tells me that that is utter bullshit. There is clearly a line somewhere in my head where mosquitoes and roaches are low enough life forms that don't deserve the same considerations that humans and animals do. This is where I get stuck and where I think Gormongous' line of reasoning regarding the number of connected neurons in the brain and how that relates to how 'important' a life form is has some weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm popping back into this thread for a moment to say that, as an experiment, I've tried only ordering vegetarian (vegan if it's available) food for the past three days when going out for lunch, and it's pretty hard. All three places only had one option that didn't have meat (burger joint, pizza joint, taco joint), and I immensely disliked two of them. The other was just a salad and was fine because I like salads (providing it's drowning in sauce).

 

Ughhhh. Well onward to tomorrow, I guess. I will REPORT BACK with further results, should I feel so inclined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is no good argument that one animal's life is more important than another's, except for the pragmatic argument that things become untenable otherwise. Even if I was a vegetarian my entire life, I would not be able to live in this world if I thought all animal's lives were equally important. It would just be far too horrible a world to consider, to live in. The weight of so much loss would constantly weigh on me. The first time I visited a grocery store that had live lobster I would break down crying for days, probably.My daily life would just be surrounded by murder at every turn. Even vegan restaurants, with their pervasive imitation meats made out of tofu, black beans, etc. would be constant reminders of the carnage, of the worldwide genocide taking place. It'd be overwhelming.

 

If I woke up tomorrow believing what Tycho believes (or, at any rate, is asserting in this thread), I think I would take my own life in a matter of hours.

 

Now, does that mean it's illogical to be vegan/vegetarian? I don't think so. Does that mean it's ethical to eat meat? I don't think so. I just think that human society is built on a couple of lies that are necessary for anything to function, and one of them is "humans aren't animals, they're something else, something greater".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had more time for this thread right now, but it's worth pointing out that thinking all species have a basic equal value is not the same as saying their lives are always of paramount importance.

You can be pro choice because a fetus is only partly developed and it stands to cause serious issues for the mother. You can be for preventing mosquitoes because of diseases they spread.

The core idea of anti specieisism (at least to me) is that we don't assume humans are more important by default. That thinking is what generally makes people ok with eating meat, because they're just farm animals and we're humans. The idea that humans are superior can only be validated by human ideas of what is important. Just like sexism makes male traits both the default and valued, specieisism makes the world view humans and our ideas put above the interests of other creatures.

So no, it's not about saving every animal, it's just about stopping us killing and undermining so many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the time? Maybe I didn't explain it well but my point is that humans aren't the most important creatures. Our lives are still valued but they shouldn't be assumed as more valuable than a dog or a cow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying, but it also kind of just looks a lot like moving an arbitrary line around to whatever makes someone comfortable. Which is fine. That's how I approach this, I know where my comfort line is in regards to meat eating, and I respect that other people have personal comfort lines they live by. But the way its been presented in this thread is not as being particularly arbitrary, but built on a pretty firm ethical foundation. One that potentially leads to some pretty gnarly quandaries, and possibly human rights issues (in the case of mapping the framework over to abortion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the time? Maybe I didn't explain it well but my point is that humans aren't the most important creatures. Our lives are still valued but they shouldn't be assumed as more valuable than a dog or a cow.

 

I think I didn't explain my point well. If you aren't against killing mosquitoes because of the diseases they carry, is there a similar instance you can think of where you would not be against killing humans? Like "they pose a serious threat to other animals"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I find that in general veganism in particular gets branded as an extreme and strict system of life but that's never really been how I approach it. I feel like I've just built a system of morals that mostly match with veganism but I inevitably operate it differently to others.

I think that's still different to being arbitrary though. It may not be based on hard and fast rules but there's reasoning behind the choices I have and do make. If this counts as an arbitrary line then what system doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Can you name an instance in which human lives are not of paramount importance?

 

I don't think it's popular thing to say, but lot of ethical theories I have heard of assumes that as ultimate ethical agent (that we know of), human life can actually go into extreme negative value and not only lose all importance, but warrants termination if the said human is acting extremely immorally.  It's just never explicitly stated, but it is core principle behind any system that deals with punishment as non-utilitarian tool of justice.

 

Its sibling idea is that animals are too dumb to ever cross such threshold, similar to how we treat children.

 

I personally don't like the word 'human' when it comes to ethical discussions though (unless we get to practical aspects of it, where it adds lot of value), as it adds so little.  I much prefer 'person-hood'.  And I think most animals clearly fail to meet my definition of personhood, but so would infants for sure.  But I would say infants have more clear practical reasons why they deserve extra protection, and this reason covers mentally ill, brain damaged, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I didn't explain my point well. If you aren't against killing mosquitoes because of the diseases they carry, is there a similar instance you can think of where you would not be against killing humans? Like "they pose a serious threat to other animals"?

Oh, well yes. It is totally context dependant but there are times like that. I'm not actually sure if this is true, but I've heard people claiming that foxes will kill every chicken they find upon breaking into a farm. Even though they'd eat maybe one or two at most. In that case, sure. The lives of those animals outweigh the life of that one Fox.

Mmm that example is probably iffy since some people might agree on the basis of protecting livestock. So I should also say that if they were a pack of wild chickens I'd be as protective of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I find that in general veganism in particular gets branded as an extreme and strict system of life but that's never really been how I approach it. I feel like I've just built a system of morals that mostly match with veganism but I inevitably operate it differently to others.

I think that's still different to being arbitrary though. It may not be based on hard and fast rules but there's reasoning behind the choices I have and do make. If this counts as an arbitrary line then what system doesn't?

 

I don't think being vegetarian or vegan is extreme, but I think arguing for it from an ethical stance of anti-speciesism is. I think that because once you start extending anti-speciesism as an ethical philosophy beyond eating, then it starts breaking down. Once you're arguing from a point of animal equality, one could argue for the mass killings of humans because it would be in the greatest ethical interest of animals at large, much in the same way that we exterminate pest animals that have invaded an environment they don't belong in. If a squirrel is as valued as a human, then it is not a reach to say that a fetus past a certain development point is as valuable as a born human.  Almost every facet of human civilization's development for the past several hundred years (or more) has caused the death and suffering of animals, and continues to do so.  To argue from a stance of anti-speciesism is to argue against the development of human civilization, past, present and future.  Almost every human, every single day, benefits from the suffering and death of animals. 

 

As I said much earlier in this thread, I'm sympathetic to ethical arguments about the treatment of animals, about the cruelty of our current systems.  I'm on board with minimizing suffering.  But I don't think anti-speciesism, as an ethical philosophy, ends up actually being able to be a functional framework, for anyone.  It can be an interesting thought experiment, but not more than that.  I think you can care about all the things that you and others in this thread care about without falling back on speciesist arguments.  Because they collapse under the weight of the expectations they bring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need some time to process all you're saying, Tycho, so I'll try to respond in due time.

But for now, I'll just mention that inevitably, these conversations end with me thinking about how ultimately all life is equally meaningless in the context of the (godless) universe, so really nothing I do matters one way or another. I don't mention that to stifle others conversation, but just to note why I tend to disengage from the discussion after a certain point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh yeah gonna hit the quote limit like 8 times, so here comes lots of posts:

On 1/20/2015 at 3:38 AM, osmosisch said:

On the subject at hand, I find Mr. Pigeon's series of posts to be internally consistent and interesting to read. It's fine to disagree with the fundamental assumption (humans and higher animals are equally important), but a lot of guff people have been giving has been unjustified in my opinion.

On 1/21/2015 at 11:36 AM, Zeusthecat said:

Regarding Tycho's posts, I think they have been pretty fascinating and consistent. I can see how some of the posts may come off as absurd or needlessly confrontational to some but reading them closely, I really don't think Tycho is intentionally being an asshole to anyone here and following the logic in those posts, it really is pretty difficult to come up with a solid counter-argument.

I'm glad that I'm not coming off as a worthless shithead to everyone. I got shit for comparing myself to Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, but I think that was a little unjustifiable and missed the point: I didn't try to say that I was as good as either of those guys or that I've done anything like what they have or that I'm a comparable person to them or anything like that. The point I made was that the stuff I'm saying sounds crazy and people call me an asshole for being strident about it in the same way that MLK and X sounded crazy to people and got branded ultra-assholes (and then shot to death). Obviously there are many differences between me and two of the most famous civil rights leaders in the history of the world, but one thing that I (and other anti-speciesists) share with anti-racists (like MLK and X) is that there are vast swathes of history in which saying things that sound very reasonable to us makes us look sound like assholes to most people, whose outlooks on life are shot through with prejudices so deep and so virulent that they cannot help but resort to negative emotion when confronted with evidence that they hold a series of morally unjustifiable opinions.

 

But honestly, put yourself in my position. I care about animals the way you care about black people, or women, or queer people, or whatever. If literally millions of black people were being tortured, murdered, and eaten, you'd be fucking pissed off too, especially if everyone acted like it was no big deal and ignored you or made fun of you when you tried to tell them that they ought to stop torturing, murdering, and eating black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Tycho have a moral obligation to try to stop the genocide of non-human animals?

I have (and everyone else has) as much of a moral duty to stop the genocide of non-human animals as they do to stop the genocide of human beings.

Is it immoral for Tycho to befriend those who contribute to it? Eagerly, even?

It is as immoral for me (and for anyone) to befriend those who contribute to it (eagerly, even) as it would be to befriend anyone who contributes (eagerly, even) to the genocide of human beings.

Would Tycho be friends with someone that, fully aware of what it was, ate veal once?

To the same degree that I would be friends with someone who ate a human being who had been raised in similar conditions once.

Would Tycho be friends with someone that, fully aware of what it was, ate a human baby once?

I don't see why I would need to commit myself to any specific answer to this question in the context of this thread given the thesis I am arguing for, namely, the moral equivalency of all animals.

Can Tycho in good faith continue on message boards that contain so many such unrepentant people?

Only to the degree that I could post on, for instance, reddit, where everyone is sexist and racist, or on other forums where people have similar prejudices.

Is Tycho a sympathizer?

I'm not sure what this means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In not freeing non-human animals from every pet store he sees, is he acting in conflict with his ethics?

Only to the degree that I would be acting in conflict with my ethics in not freeing humans from wrongful imprisonment (more or less - there are some disanalagous features. If the pet store treats the animals well and lets them leave if someone adopts them, I'm not sure there's much of an issue there, any more than there would be if an orphanage treats its orphan children well but doesn't let them leave unless someone adopts them.).

Would Tycho be justified in the murder of key figures in the meat industry?

I (and anyone else) would be as justified in murdering key figures of the meat industry as we would be in murdering key figures in the in-vitro-babies-for-baby-burgers industry.

Would Tycho be justified in the murder of key members of the Nazi party in the 1930's?

I don't see why I would need to commit myself to any specific answer to this question in the context of this thread given the thesis I am arguing for, namely, the moral equivalency of all animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Tycho be justified in stealing slaves from a slave owner in 1815 in order to set them free?

I don't see why I would need to commit myself to any specific answer to this question in the context of this thread given the thesis I am arguing for, namely, the moral equivalency of all animals.

Would Tycho be justified in stealing pets from a pet owner in order to set them free?

As justified as I would be in stealing human children from their parents in order to set them free.

Would Tycho be justified in murdering a slave owner in 1815?

I don't see why I would need to commit myself to any specific answer to this question in the context of this thread given the thesis I am arguing for, namely, the moral equivalency of all animals.

Would Tycho be justified in the murder of a pet owner in 2015?

As justified as I would be in the murder of a parent of a human in 2015.

What if that pet owner treated their pets well?

What if the parent treated their children well?

What if that slave owner treated their slaves well?

I don't see why I would need to commit myself to any specific answer to this question in the context of this thread given the thesis I am arguing for, namely, the moral equivalency of all animals.

Has Tycho ever accidentally killed a non-human animal in his life? If so, how did he repent?

Probably, although I can't recall having done so. I've certainly killed non-human animals in my life non-accidentally, or, more accurately, I've eaten dead animals that were killed in order to feed me. I wasn't a vegan until my 20s. I repented by saying six hail Mary full of graces and apologizing to my roommate's cat, who I had earlier that day crowned "proxy for all the animal kingdom" in a ceremony that included a crown made from a spare piece of paper and music playing from speakers hooked up to an iPad.

If so, does he still think about this non-human animal?

When people ask me if I think about X, the answer is pretty much always yes. I think about a lot of stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2015 at 4:23 PM, Bjorn said:

The core idea is that all animals lives should be valued as equally as possible and that suffering should be minimized (and suffering can mean several things, ranging from the immediate physical suffering to denial of future enjoyment of life) and that needless death at the hands of moral/ethical humans should be eliminated.

And given the repeated comparisons in this thread to racism, then obviously this means that all animals within a species should be treated as equally as possible, with a goal of eliminating as much suffering and needless death as possible.

How does adhering to that model of ethics not lead one to conclude that abortion needs to be banned in all cases except where the mother's life is in clear danger? It's the needless ending of a life, in deference to the preference of another animal capable of ethical reasoning that results in long term suffering (denial of life) and possibly immediate suffering (depending on when the procedure is performed).

Edited to add: I'm not trying to do some crazy derail here, I'm genuinely curious. One thing about thinking about ethical models and whether they are a fit for you is to extend the logic and structure of them over to other scenarios where they also map out, and see if they still hold weight.

This is a good point. First, it brings up one clarification: when I say "all animals" I actually mean "all animals that can suffer." For a while, a fetus can't feel pain, so, for instance, there's nothing wrong with the morning after pill or other methods of abortion that occur early on.

 

Later on, some philosophers believe that abortion would be justifiable even if the fetus had all the moral rights of a full human being. For the most famous defense of this position see this article. If Thomson is right, then even if the fetus, as an animal, is morally equivalent to all other animals, including human beings, it would still be moral to abort the fetus.

 

Finally, in the case where the fetus is old enough to feel pain and on the assumption that Thomson is incorrect, you might think I'm in a bit of a bind. Wouldn't killing a fetus be just as bad as murdering a full-grown human being? It sounds like I have to be (somewhat implausibly) quite pro-life! I think I have an "out" here (there are actually a few options, I believe), but rather than jumping straight to that, let's flip the question around for a moment.

 

Let's say you take the opposite position from me. You think a late stage fetus, which can feel pain, can be permissibly aborted. At what point is it not okay to kill the fetus? Can you abort one day before birth? One minute before birth? One second? If you answer "no," then it seems like you, too, have a point at which it's suddenly not okay to kill the fetus, so it's not clear why you'd have problems with my refusal to kill the fetus (if indeed I'm on the hook for this).

 

If your answer is "yes," do you believe it would be okay to kill the fetus once it's born, in other words, once it's a baby, and no longer a fetus? If your answer is "yes," then notice we're fine: all I've been trying to do is get you to admit that all animals are morally equal, and if the only way you can be pro-choice is to admit that it's also okay to kill babies, then you're perfectly consistent when you want to kill non-human animals too. Kill all those fuckers! Eat 'em too, for all I care! Baby burgers for everyone.

 

If your answer is "holy shit no, it's not okay to murder babies," then on what basis do you draw that conclusion? What makes it okay to kill a fetus but not okay to kill a baby? What is that magical property? Does that property apply to non-human animals? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2015 at 5:18 PM, Twig said:

I'm popping back into this thread for a moment to say that, as an experiment, I've tried only ordering vegetarian (vegan if it's available) food for the past three days when going out for lunch, and it's pretty hard. All three places only had one option that didn't have meat (burger joint, pizza joint, taco joint), and I immensely disliked two of them. The other was just a salad and was fine because I like salads (providing it's drowning in sauce).

 

Ughhhh. Well onward to tomorrow, I guess. I will REPORT BACK with further results, should I feel so inclined.

In most places in America you're lucky if there's a single vegan option on the menu. Most places just have vegetarian food, and even then, in many places there are only one or two vegetarian options, one of which is often a salad. In the midwest it's not unusual to be at a restaurant with literally nothing vegetarian unless you tell them to hold the bacon on your salad or something. It's especially tough if you're actually serious about being vegetarian, because many cheeses are made with rennet, which comes from dead animals, so it's not vegetarian. Thus stuff that looks vegetarian at first glance turns out to have some poor dead cow in there. Surprise!

 

On 1/21/2015 at 5:29 PM, Patrick R said:

I think there is no good argument that one animal's life is more important than another's, except for the pragmatic argument that things become untenable otherwise. Even if I was a vegetarian my entire life, I would not be able to live in this world if I thought all animal's lives were equally important. It would just be far too horrible a world to consider, to live in. The weight of so much loss would constantly weigh on me. The first time I visited a grocery store that had live lobster I would break down crying for days, probably.My daily life would just be surrounded by murder at every turn. Even vegan restaurants, with their pervasive imitation meats made out of tofu, black beans, etc. would be constant reminders of the carnage, of the worldwide genocide taking place. It'd be overwhelming.

 

If I woke up tomorrow believing what Tycho believes (or, at any rate, is asserting in this thread), I think I would take my own life in a matter of hours.

 

Now, does that mean it's illogical to be vegan/vegetarian? I don't think so. Does that mean it's ethical to eat meat? I don't think so. I just think that human society is built on a couple of lies that are necessary for anything to function, and one of them is "humans aren't animals, they're something else, something greater".

This is definitely an issue. Even if you aren't a vegetarian, and you just have issues with unproblematically bad things, like humans being tortured, enslaved, slaughtered en masse, starved to death, and so on, there's more than enough of that shit going on everywhere, every day, to make anyone want to kill themselves. I think there are, numbers-wise, more slaves right now than there were back when slavery was an accepted practice, simply because there are so many more people today and slavery is still a very big thing. Every once in a while we get a big ol' genocide and much more often it's like "oh hey, I guess Boko Haram just killed a few thousand innocent people" or whatever.

 

In other words, you claim that if you were constantly reminded of the worldwide genocide taking place with respect to non-human animals, you'd feel shitty enough to kill yourself, but don't you feel this way about the constant genocides taking place with respect to humans? Do those not bum you out? Or does it take, like, extra SUPER genocide on the level of what we do to non-human animals for you to feel really bad? I think almost nobody, whatever their ostensible moral commitments are, ever really lives up to them on an emotional level, unless they have a pretty shitty morality that says "eh whatever, buncha people gettin' genocided over in Africa again, that's life lol." It's a defensive mechanism, I guess. Things are so bad that no matter what your rational ethical commitments are, and no matter how much you refrain from eating animals, torturing black people, discriminating against women, etc., on the emotional level it's tough to get worked up about stuff you know is super awful, like the latest genocide, without either being horrendously inconsistent or feeling bummed out 24/7.

 

Speaking of really shitty moralities, though:

 

On 1/21/2015 at 6:15 PM, CLWheeljack said:

But for now, I'll just mention that inevitably, these conversations end with me thinking about how ultimately all life is equally meaningless in the context of the (godless) universe, so really nothing I do matters one way or another. I don't mention that to stifle others conversation, but just to note why I tend to disengage from the discussion after a certain point.

That's a fat load of bullshit. Even if we grant for a moment that it's perfectly okay to do whatever the fuck we want to do to non-human animals, torture 'em, eat 'em, whatever, the idea that there's nothing wrong with the Holocaust or with mass rape or gassing a bunch of civilians with sarin gas is pretty silly. I'd like to hear someone keep up that puerile "nothing matters one way or another" bullshit while they are being tortured to death along with everyone they've ever loved. I imagine they'd be a little less blasé about morality at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You take my french fries from my cold, dead, vegan hands

 

Man, you can keep those french fries, then. Cold fries are the worst form of food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×