Vegan vs. Carnivore Debate on Ethics (Gone wild)

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, blankisomeone said:

Is there a deep, SATISFYING, metaphysical REASON for why it MUST be like this?

Fundamentally, I think it's because finite things must get their energy from outside themselves.

Your finiteness impinges on others finiteness. A molecule cannot move without pushing another molecule.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[Recursoinominado]

I have been vegan and i have been carnivore and I feel MUCH better on carnivore diet.

That being said, I feel the best when I eat 80-90% carnivore and 10-20% fruits.

[blankisomeone]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Fundamentally, I think it's because finite things must get their energy from outside themselves.

Your finiteness impinges on others finiteness. A molecule cannot move without pushing another molecule.

 

[blankisomeone]

for me to eat meat I have to force myself to FORGET where they come from. If I contemplate further the amount of pain and suffering I wouldn't be able to put it in my mouth. I have to dumb myself down and forget in order to take a bite

 

the physical world is god's worst creation 

Edited May 23 by blankisomeone

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, blankisomeone said:

Too much hippie vibes is not good for you. Life is a brutal affair. Hippies are too disconnected from that.

Which is why I speak of crocodiles.

A hippie will not understand life until a crocodile bites her foot off.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[seriousman24]

Even vegan food or fully lab made artificial food is immoral to eat because you're inevitably giving it life and consciousness through you, they become alive through us which means that we're literally making inorganic life suffer, same probably applies to the air we breath, but not eating food is also immoral because you're going to spread the misery from your own hunger and also your own microbiome which is intimately part of us.

Any suffering we've been through is responsible for the literal suffering of inorganic matter that would otherwise not be suffering through us had it remained in it's unconscious state and therefore anything we eat will always create suffering even if we were getting fed literal direct streams of energy.

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Too much hippie vibes is not good for you. Life is a brutal affair. Hippies are too disconnected from that.

Which is why I speak of crocodiles.

A hippie will not understand life until a crocodile bites her foot off.

 

[zurew]

Some of the arguments here are bottom of the barrel quality. 

Relying on a very weird definition for morality like "all types of suffering in any low quantity is necessarily bad" and pretending that if you can establish that morals are subjective that will justify all of your choices that you make without needing to reflect on your own values

[Leo Gura]

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. A crocodile will meet you there."

-- Rumi

[Buck Edwards]

18 hours ago, zurew said:

Thats like saying whoever says murder is wrong - that person must operate from objective morality , which is false.

Isn't that the case already. What are they basing their view on? 

[Buck Edwards]

18 hours ago, zurew said:

People can be subjectivists about morality and have their awakenings and still advocate for or against some things - for example against murder.

If someone is a subjectivist, how can they be for or against something? Won't they be neutral on the subject matter? 

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Buck Edwards said:

If someone is a subjectivist, how can they be for or against something? Won't they be neutral on the subject matter? 

No, you still have preferences

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, zurew said:

No, you still have preferences

But preferences and morality aren't the same thing. 

[zurew]

Just now, Buck Edwards said:

But preferences and morality aren't the same thing. 

It is in the context of subjectivity. Morality is just about what you ought to do and that ought can be grounded in any set of values and that set of values can be your prefences in the case of a subjectivist

[Buck Edwards]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

It is in the context of subjectivity. Morality is just about what you ought to do and that ought can be grounded in any set of values and that set of values can be your prefences in the case of a subjectivist

But preferences still aren't objective. They're based on what you like or what you want, not on what is universally true. You can't prove that murder is inherently bad just like you can't prove that eating meat is inherently bad.

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

But preferences still aren't objective. They're based on what you like or what you want, not on what is universally true. You can't prove that murder is inherently bad just like you can't prove that eating meat is inherently bad

Hence why the term 'moral subjectivist'. You don't need to prove anything objectively, what you do is that you go into another persons subjectivist bubble and check whether they are consistent with their own moral axioms or whether they even self relflected enough to know what their preferences are, regarding moral actions.

Thats one way how the persuasion process can work between 2 subjectivists.

Edited May 23 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

check whether they are consistent with their own moral axioms

No one is.

Your whole life is built on the exploitation of others in ways you don't wish to know.

That's the problem with all this morality stuff. The mind wants to paint itself as good and others as evil, but this will never work in the end because self is evil. And that's what morality is hiding. There is no such thing as a consistent moral system or life. Because it's a fantasy in the end.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[Buck Edwards]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

Hence why the term 'moral subjectivist'. You don't need to prove anything objectively, what you do is that you go into another persons subjectivist bubble and check whether they are consistent with their own moral axioms or whether they even self relflected enough to know what their preferences are, regarding moral actions.

Thats one way how the persuasion process can work between 2 subjectivists.

A moral subjectivist simply doesn't exist. Because morality is based on perceived objectivity. Moral subjectivist is like saying a glass is empty full. That's an oxymoron. 

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No one is.

That's the problem with all this morality stuff. The mind wants to paint itself as good and others as evil, but this will never work in the end because self is evil. And that's what morality is hiding. There is no such thing as a consistent moral system or life. Because it's a fantasy in the end.

You are conflating certain terms with meanings that are differently used in the context of a subjectivist. The moral language in the context of a subjectivist mean different than what those mean to an objectivist.

Good just means - aligns with my preferences

Wrong just means - doesn't align with my preferences.

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Your whole life is built on the exploitation of others in ways you don't wish to know

Yes, no one knows all the logical entailments of their actions and all the logical entailments of their beliefs, but the ones that you  are aware of are the ones you can decide to do something about. 

There is action X that I have the choice to do or to not do. Okay I am aware, that action X produces Y outcome and Y isn't aligned with my preferences therefore I won't do action X. 

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

A moral subjectivist simply doesn't exist. Because morality is based on perceived objectivity. Moral subjectivist is like saying a glass is empty full. That's an oxymoron.

Moral subjectivity does exist you should look up the term

You have an idiosyncratic definition for morality that excludes subjetivits and thats why you have a problem grappling with the term 'moral subjectivity'.

Edited May 23 by zurew