What is one moral you have that most people don't agree with?
What is one moral you have that most people don't agree with?
Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
You're viewing a single thread.
Eating and using animals when there is a plant-based alternative is wrong and should not be done.
Ok so genuine question (and also my odd moral I guess?) why is eating a plant more moral than eating an animal? They're both equally alive and subsequently equally dead. Sure plants don't have a nervous system but they do react to harmful stimuli in a way somewhat analagous to a pain response. The only real difference appears to be that we can relate to animals more.
Eat plants: plants die
Eat animals: animals have to eat a bunch of plants first meaning way more plants die and also animals die
Plants don't have an agent that feels negative or positive feelings. Its stimulus-response system starts and stops at that. Animals on the other hand can experience suffering and pleasure, and and it's morally wrong to inflict the first and deny the second
Plants don’t have an agent that feels negative or positive feelings.
you can't prove that
you can’t prove that
I also can't prove that you have one. It's not a standard we operate under.
I also can’t prove that you have one
so it's probably not a good basis for making moral decisions
It is. You're already doing it, otherwise you will be having zero problems with killing and eating random humans. You just put your line at believing that humans have agency, even though you just as much can't prove that.
We have pretty good understanding of how biological organisms operate at this point. We don't need to spend generations on disproving solipsism anymore.You just put your line at believing that humans have agency, even though you just as much can’t prove that.
you're projecting.
You’re already doing it, otherwise you will be having zero problems with killing and eating random humans.
no, that's not the basis of my moral decisions
suffering and pleasure, and and it’s morally wrong to inflict the first and deny the second
this is only true under a limited set of moral beliefs. most people aren't utilitarians though
But most people do care if someone hurts their own dog. Why is causing pain to animals not okay when dogs are involved but it is for pigs, cows and chickens?
Kant dealt with this like 200 years ago. have you tried actually learning any ethical philosophy?
Your arguments lack any logic so don't lecture me about philosophy. It doesn't matter here at all what Kant said since most people don't agree with him on that.
Your arguments lack any logic
you're wrong, and making a statement like this doesn't make it true
It doesn't matter here at all what Kant said since most people don't agree with him on that.
actually most professional philosophers are deontologists. and they eat meat and eggs and dairy.
What are you talking about? Why should I care what "professional philosophers" do? That's just some nonsense without any context.
Edit: it feels like whenever you realize being wrong about something you just switch to another topic.
Why should I care what "professional philosophers" do?
they're the experts on ethics and logic, both of which you seem to think you have a firm grasp on. I'm pointing out that you are probably mistaken.
whenever you realize being wrong about something you just switch to another topic.
I'm following your lead. if you want to stick with your assertions about pleasure and suffering I'll be glad to eviscerate utilitarianism for you.
Would you say that cutting a carrot is equal to cut the throat of a cow?
Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain so they are not able to feel pain or emotions. Animals can feel, dream, have friends, same as we do. Just not as complex.
Actually, (correct me if i'm wrong) carrots are not dead until you boil/cook them.
I love poking holes in people's analogies without addressing their points.
they are not able to feel pain or emotions
you can't prove that
Here is my prove: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052213/
TL;DR: Abstract
Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.
that's not proof they aren't conscious
"...plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness..."
an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
We've been doing this for ages, actually we evolved eating meat.
We slaved colored people for ages. Woman had much less rights back in the days. We lived in caves for decades. Etc.
Just because we have been doing something for a very long time and it is socially accepted does not automatically make it right.
They are correct though, don't vegans have to take suppliments to fill in on things missing from their diet? Maybe eating less meat can be a goal for humanity, but I think we still need some until lab/fake meat is yummy enough.
Edit: now i think of it, suppliments are available so maybe my comment doesnt matter.
If you are thinking about B-12, that is already artificially added to meat products too. So even people who eat meat aren't getting it the "natural" way. Now there are available plant milks fortified with it which does the same thing.
Yes, vegans should monitor their health more closely to make sure nothing is missing, but it wouldn't be particularly difficult to get everything you need from plant based sources.
And actual milk fortified with it.
If modern medicine and things like vaccines are ok, then so are supplements.
Supplements are lower impact and less "unnatural" than animal agriculture.
I think that a reduced meat diet is good for the environment but being vegan is very far in my opinion.
comparing women to animals is what misogynists do. comparing colored people to animals is what slavers do.
I'm not a vegan, but that's not what they're saying at all.
They are comparing slavery and misogeny to the killing of animals, not the animals themselves.
Additionally, why do people complaining about these comparisons always view it as lowering the standards for certain groups of people rather than raising the standards for animals? It's the wrong takeaway from the comparison.
Plant-basee alternatives are such a joke to me.Plant based meats and alternative milks are built upon an infrastructure that demands massive resource extraction from third world countries, buttressed by an impoverished underclass that suffers generational trauma to feed the transactional corporate machine. Just don't eat meat; veggies, fruit, and legumes are all you need.
You're right, they aren't perfect but they are better than meat in most cases. If a plants based meat alternative is what it takes for someone to reduce or stop their meat intake then that's a moral improvement in my book.
I think this is the one thing that is impossible to defend. In my opinion, not being vegan is impossible to justify, on ethical and moral grounds. And I am not vegan currently (I was in the past).
Why?
Why not?
I'm genuinely asking. People approach this topic from different sides, and I want to understand.
Because I think it is wrong to kill an individual if it is not necessary. Calorie intake is not a legitimate reason if it can also be plant-based.
most people don't believe that. I think it's fair to ask for some justification
Make the plants free and people will naturally eat more of them.
Probably. It's a shame that meat is so heavily subsidized. Without the subsidies, meat would be far too expensive for normal earners. In my country (Germany), for example, you pay 19% tax on oat milk and 7% on cow's milk. Because cow's milk is considered a staple food...🤡