Vegan vs. Carnivore Debate on Ethics (Gone wild)

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

My definition accounts for that. If you don't have the power to reduce the suffering your selfishness causes others then it's a moot point.

And anyway, my defintion is not normative. It says nothing about blame or that you have to act in any way. You could just be an asshole if you want. But if you want to be considered "moral", then take whatever measures are reasonable to reduce the suffering you cause others.

You are more of an objectivist than me. Morality just equates to preferences. Instead of using the word "moral" use the word "preference", and you will see what moral systems are in the first place, an attemptto capture the expression of subjectivity within any given individual.

 

You are still stuck in objectivist notions of morality without realizing it. There is a reality to what your mind prefers, or what will lead to an optimal expression of your subjective ends.

Edited May 23 by Scholar

[mmKay]

17 minutes ago, Bandman said:

How have you reached this insight and know it 100% to be true?

 

 

[Leo Gura]

30 minutes ago, Bandman said:

How have you reached this insight and know it 100% to be true?

Sit down and examine what morality is. Think it through. It's something the mind spins up. You had no morality as a child. You had to invent it.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Sit down and examine what morality is. Think it through. It's something the mind spins up. You had no morality as a child. You had to invent it.

Moral systems are different of morality. Morality just translatesto preferences, like I said, and those are very real.

When you say "People shouldn't rape my children", that's not soething your mind just randomly spinned up, it's just part of your subjectivity, it means "I really don't want people to rape my children.".

 

It isn't an arbitrary invention.

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar If you insist on defining morality as merely preferences then you will come up with wierd conclusions.

According to your absurd logic a crocodile is moral or immoral because it prefers flesh over pineapples.

See what trouble you got yourself into?

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

Be careful that while we're partaking in scintillating discussions and debates about the nature of morality at the riverside, a crocodile doesn't snatch you.  

[Leo Gura]

Morality is the crocodile.

[Leo Gura]

54 minutes ago, Bandman said:

cant we say that being loving is the correct morality? 

Yes, of course, however Love is such a radical thing that it becomes the opposite of coventional morality. Because you have to love all the "evil" stuff, like a crocodile eating your children.

Religion has tried to teach love, but it always devolves into judgment, shaming, hatred, demonizing, moralizing, normativity, and closedmindness. Because a finite mind is constitutionally incapable of serious Love. And thus conventional morality is born.

The problem with telling people that "morality is being loving" is that they will say, "Yes! And that's why we should torture pedophiles, because we love our children. And we should bomb Gaza because we love the Jews. And we should assassinate Putin because he is the next Hitler. And we should steal the next election because we love America. And we should turn America into a Christian theocracy because Christ is love. And if you oppose us, we will destroy you, because you stand against love."

That is the morality crocodile.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

On 5/22/2024 at 10:43 AM, undeather said:

 

 

Slavery has been forbidden because :

1)Slave has grouped together, and revolted on different way, sometimes ending by a racial rampage

(ex : Rampage of white people at Haiti because of Dessalines)

2)The evolution of the means of production and distribution made slavery as a means of production more ineffective in comparison of salary system.

3)Because of ideological and theological influence, a majority portion of White people in USA have finished to vote a anti-slavery and later an anti segregation candidate.

 

First of all, humans can revolt, animals don’t.

Without even talking about slavery, you are not going to attack another human being like you would attack animals in general because humans are more intelligent and organized, and there is a real risk of retaliation. The entire purpose of justice is fundamentally to avoid the cycle of retaliation.

Also, there is a taboo on cannibalism in Europe for theological and certainly hygienic reasons (prion...), that does not mean that it is not relative and cultural. In the absolute, what can happen in the head of people, even if they are majority, has no importance for what it is about being interested in what is the objective reality, or rather quite simply what is the best thing to do for our individual agenda.

 

[Schizophonia]

"Moral" is the projection of the cognitive dissonances.

[Jannes]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

But my position is far more radical than that. What I'm saying is that even if I had no health reasons, and just ate meat purely out of selfishness, that too would be okay. Because where you draw the line of your selfishness is subjective.

Okay lets throw morality out the window for a second: Would you do eat meat then even if you didn't had health problems? If yes would you even torture/slaughter an animal yourself if there were fun aspects about it (for example you could be interested in how deep the axe penetrates the neck of a cow if you swang at it). 

[Schizophonia]

4 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Okay lets throw morality out the window for a second: Would you do eat meat then even if you didn't had health problems? If yes would you even torture/slaughter an animal yourself if there were fun aspects about it (for example you could be interested in how deep the axe penetrates the neck of a cow if you swang at it). 

If you have lived in total comfort forever, you would potentially be like a baby crying over the slightest hurt.
This does not mean that you would be more conscious/evolved, It's just a different way of dealing with pain.

We can broadly postulate that our mirror neurons are by default overactive for some reason before being downregulated by neuroplasticity under environmental influence.

Not being able to kill an animal is a completely modern phenomenon.

Edited May 23 by Schizophonia

[Jannes]

@Schizophonia I dont quite get the point. 

[Schizophonia]

11 minutes ago, Jannes said:

@Schizophonia I dont quite get the point. 

You have tacitly suggested that the fact that Leo isn't probably able to kill an animal is a prove for existance of an "universal moral" er/or that humans are actually herbivore.

I respond it's just a neurological anomaly because of modern environment.

Edited May 23 by Schizophonia

[Yimpa]

I suggest the vegan tries carnivore diet for 1 month and carnivore tries vegan diet for 1 month, then do a follow-up interview.

Of course, both are too selfish to even consider such a proposal.

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Okay lets throw morality out the window for a second: Would you do eat meat then even if you didn't had health problems? If yes would you even torture/slaughter an animal yourself if there were fun aspects about it (for example you could be interested in how deep the axe penetrates the neck of a cow if you swang at it). 

I don't quite get the point.

Just do whatever you want. You will anyways despite all your moralizing.

[Schizophonia]

2 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

I suggest the vegan tries carnivore diet for 1 month and carnivore tries vegan diet for 1 month, then do a follow-up interview.

Of course, both are too selfish to even consider such a proposal.

No i did it.

Vegan made me aggressive with a serious brain fog. I also had a ton of gas and developped the first serious intestinal problems of my life (colopathy attack).

Carnivore (it was quite "primal", with lots of fruit and dairy) made me quite grounded with 0 gas. I didn't notice much more than that.

[Yimpa]

At least the interview was more productive than this: 

 

[Jannes]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't quite get the point.

Just do whatever you want. You will anyways despite all your moralizing.

If there were no moral obligation to not harm an animal and you still wouldn't do it then you could be a vegan without the motive being morality. That was the only point I was trying to make. 

[Jannes]

18 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You have tacitly suggested that the fact that Leo isn't probably able to kill an animal is a prove for existance of an "universal moral" er/or that humans are actually herbivore.

I respond it's just a neurological anomaly because of modern environment.

Oh I See now. I am not that well-read in neuroscience so I struggled to make the connection. Well you could switch the example out. Would you act immediately "immoral" in some way to an animal if morality was abolished for a minute.