Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Struggling to justify eating meat/specieism

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 6:45:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

Why are you struggling to refute an argument based purely on virtue of not agreeing with the conclusion? That seems to be the wrong way to go about an enquiry - you should never start with the conclusion and seek to justify it. Lay out the premises of the argument against eating meat, and see if you accept those premises and the logical structure. If you accept those premises then you also accept the conclusion, it is that simple.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 8:27:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

Pretty much the basic argument I use. I don't think you can't get around it. Axiomatically rejecting the conclusion and searching for a rationalization is not an intellectually honest venture.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:02:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:45:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

Why are you struggling to refute an argument based purely on virtue of not agreeing with the conclusion? That seems to be the wrong way to go about an enquiry - you should never start with the conclusion and seek to justify it. Lay out the premises of the argument against eating meat, and see if you accept those premises and the logical structure. If you accept those premises then you also accept the conclusion, it is that simple.

At 7/4/2015 8:27:16 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

Pretty much the basic argument I use. I don't think you can't get around it. Axiomatically rejecting the conclusion and searching for a rationalization is not an intellectually honest venture.

I know it's not intellectual good practice. But there seems to be an intuitive moral difference between cannibalism and carnivourism, it's just I can't put my finger on it.

I was wondering if anyone had a good rebuttal, that's all.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:28:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

As a Christian, this shouldn't be too hard for you. First, humans are created in the image of God. That is the reason given in Genesis for why we shouldn't kill people. Second, because God forbids eating people but not eating meat.

Besides that, some morals are basic. While many of our moral convictions are arrived at by inference from prior moral premises, unless there are some basic moral premises that are NOT inferred from prior moral premises, then the whole thing is a house of cards. Maybe the conviction that it's okay to eat animals but not okay to eat people is just one of those basic moral premises. After all, one can't deny that it as least seems wildly counter-intuitive that we should treat humans the same way we treat every other animal and that eating people is no better or worse than eating a chicken. Even vegetarians recognize that while it may be bad to eat chicken, it's not nearly as bad as eating a human. People who try to equate the two in an effort to be consistent still have to struggle against this basic moral intuition that they can't shake. As for me, I just give in to it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:31:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:45:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

Why are you struggling to refute an argument based purely on virtue of not agreeing with the conclusion? That seems to be the wrong way to go about an enquiry - you should never start with the conclusion and seek to justify it. Lay out the premises of the argument against eating meat, and see if you accept those premises and the logical structure. If you accept those premises then you also accept the conclusion, it is that simple.

I'm not sure I agree with that. People struggled for a long time to solve Zeno's paradoxes precisely because in spite of it seemly showing that motion is impossible, the falseness of that conclusion appeared more evident than it's denial. People were so convinced that motion was possible, based merely on observation and common sense, that it was enough to make them think there must be a solution to Zeno's paradoxes even if they didn't know what that solution was. Sometimes, it is more reasonable to believe something even if there are arguments against it that one can't answer.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Bennett91
Posts: 4,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:35:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

I'm a proud Human supremacist.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:45:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

What does "morally relevant factor" mean? We agree that killing each other is morally wrong, and need be justified when it happens. Animals generally don't share such an understanding.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Apples to oranges. A new born baby is arguably more intelligent than a clam or lobster, and some squid are arguably more intelligent than some freshmen I went to school with. I would recommend trying to frame this in an appropriate location in each example's life cycle.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.


As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

Is nature, in terms of predation, "moral"? Traditionally, we don't allow for cannibalism because it usually involves a murder first, and that murder is very rarely a circumstance coming from a position of necessity in terms of hunger. For cannibalistic animals, it may be the case, though I am not 100% on all cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Once that understanding is hurdled, we are now morally on the same footing as any other animal that kills others for its survival, or chooses one variety of intake over another due to preference.

Because I am animal, I eat what I want. Because I am human, I have developed a moral code regarding my fellow man whom in general extend the same to me. Do I need extend that moral code to that which will not extend it to me? If I am a vegetarian, will a predator specie ignore me for moral reasons? Will sharks pass me by? If that is not the case, what moral concern should I regard animals that won't similar regard?

I guess a weird and left field defense would be the social contract. Its not offered to humans from the animal world, and we are in high placement on the food chain. Nature on the whole dictates from there what happens.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 9:52:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 9:31:16 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:45:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

Why are you struggling to refute an argument based purely on virtue of not agreeing with the conclusion? That seems to be the wrong way to go about an enquiry - you should never start with the conclusion and seek to justify it. Lay out the premises of the argument against eating meat, and see if you accept those premises and the logical structure. If you accept those premises then you also accept the conclusion, it is that simple.

I'm not sure I agree with that. People struggled for a long time to solve Zeno's paradoxes precisely because in spite of it seemly showing that motion is impossible, the falseness of that conclusion appeared more evident than it's denial.

Did these same people lay out all the premises systematically and saw that that they originally accepted them all? I really don't think so. I very rarely see Zenos paradox presented in any rigorous or formal manner, it is all implicit and suggestive, but not explicit.

People were so convinced that motion was possible, based merely on observation and common sense, that it was enough to make them think there must be a solution to Zeno's paradoxes even if they didn't know what that solution was. Sometimes, it is more reasonable to believe something even if there are arguments against it that one can't answer.

Sure, that is just a case of denying the consequent (if all these premises are true, then the conclusion is true, yet the conclusion is false - therefore a premise is false). But this is nor analogous to the example regarding meat eating since the OP doesn't have the same starting point (movement being possible is essentially a clear cut empirical fact, eating meat being morally permissible is not). Even if they were analogous my previous comments would apply - lay out the argument first before seeing if you accept the premises that entail the conclusion
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 10:06:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

The flaw in the argument is that eating is a moral issue. The vegetarian lives a sheltered life and has no idea how the rest of the world lives. The vegetarian lives a life of privilege and is able to pick and choose what they eat therefore is able to feel morally superior. The rest of the world doesn't have a choice in what they eat 95% of the time.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 10:32:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

I would say first of all not to confuse the natural disgust we tend to feel when thinking about eating humans with morality. If you are, that can make the arguments harder to understand.

One of the main factors in what we consider regarding morality is agreement. Borrowing something without permission is considered wrong, the same action with permission is morally acceptable. Agreement makes a big difference. With that in mind, animals do not care what happens to them after they die. They don't think about it, or at least we have no reason to think they do and we have no arrangements with them that they would honor. So there is no agreement. The same cannot be said amongst humans. I am sure you have some desire regarding what happens to you after you die and expect other humans to honor it. Therefore you should do the same. So until you meet a human who wants to be eaten for dinner when they die, that explains the moral difference.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 10:43:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 10:32:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

I would say first of all not to confuse the natural disgust we tend to feel when thinking about eating humans with morality. If you are, that can make the arguments harder to understand.

One of the main factors in what we consider regarding morality is agreement. Borrowing something without permission is considered wrong, the same action with permission is morally acceptable. Agreement makes a big difference. With that in mind, animals do not care what happens to them after they die. They don't think about it, or at least we have no reason to think they do and we have no arrangements with them that they would honor. So there is no agreement. The same cannot be said amongst humans. I am sure you have some desire regarding what happens to you after you die and expect other humans to honor it. Therefore you should do the same. So until you meet a human who wants to be eaten for dinner when they die, that explains the moral difference.

But how about babies or severely mentally retarded humans? They cannot have particular desires regarding what happens to their bodies after their deaths.

There's also the issue that eating meat isn't simply a matter of eating the meat - it almost always includes the premature killing of an animal. Why is this acceptable for an animal but not a human?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 11:39:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 10:43:47 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 7/4/2015 10:32:52 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

I would say first of all not to confuse the natural disgust we tend to feel when thinking about eating humans with morality. If you are, that can make the arguments harder to understand.

One of the main factors in what we consider regarding morality is agreement. Borrowing something without permission is considered wrong, the same action with permission is morally acceptable. Agreement makes a big difference. With that in mind, animals do not care what happens to them after they die. They don't think about it, or at least we have no reason to think they do and we have no arrangements with them that they would honor. So there is no agreement. The same cannot be said amongst humans. I am sure you have some desire regarding what happens to you after you die and expect other humans to honor it. Therefore you should do the same. So until you meet a human who wants to be eaten for dinner when they die, that explains the moral difference.

But how about babies or severely mentally retarded humans? They cannot have particular desires regarding what happens to their bodies after their deaths.

If you were an infant or were severely mentally retarded would you want to be eaten? No? So don't eat others.

Agreement is not necessarily explicit, in most cases it is simply a matter of expectation based on the fact that we probably share about 99% of the same desires and understand that working together is the best way to attain them.

There's also the issue that eating meat isn't simply a matter of eating the meat - it almost always includes the premature killing of an animal. Why is this acceptable for an animal but not a human?

I don't believe it is moral to kill animals, but I do consider it more acceptable then killing a human in large part because of the agreement factor and because morality in the end is about our values. No species on earth values another species as highly as their own so I look at it more as a matter of nature than anything else.
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 12:26:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

There isn't.


We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

The only escape is complete and utter nihilism and apathy. One could also argue about MC--a house analogy, humans made the house of morality, ergo they can decide which guest to welcome into the house, which is the "moral community".

But I still don't think that works. I recommend you turn vegetarian ;D
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 1:49:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.
Not abuse. I do not advocate that. But animals were given to us to eat. Torturing and gluttony are wrong. Taking what you need isn't.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 1:51:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 1:49:51 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.

Not abuse. I do not advocate that. But animals were given to us to eat. Torturing and gluttony are wrong. Taking what you need isn't.

That's ascribing intrinsic value and superiority to human life without metaethical justification. I could debate you on that since I haven't debated philosophy in a while.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:00:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 1:51:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:49:51 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.

Not abuse. I do not advocate that. But animals were given to us to eat. Torturing and gluttony are wrong. Taking what you need isn't.

That's ascribing intrinsic value and superiority to human life without metaethical justification. I could debate you on that since I haven't debated philosophy in a while.

Humans have intrinsic value because God created them. Unfortunately I don't have time to do an official debate right now.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:03:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 2:00:20 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:51:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:49:51 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.

Not abuse. I do not advocate that. But animals were given to us to eat. Torturing and gluttony are wrong. Taking what you need isn't.

That's ascribing intrinsic value and superiority to human life without metaethical justification. I could debate you on that since I haven't debated philosophy in a while.

Humans have intrinsic value because God created them. Unfortunately I don't have time to do an official debate right now.

You're saying God didn't create animals?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:25:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 2:03:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 2:00:20 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:51:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:49:51 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.

Not abuse. I do not advocate that. But animals were given to us to eat. Torturing and gluttony are wrong. Taking what you need isn't.

That's ascribing intrinsic value and superiority to human life without metaethical justification. I could debate you on that since I haven't debated philosophy in a while.

Humans have intrinsic value because God created them. Unfortunately I don't have time to do an official debate right now.

You're saying God didn't create animals?

Oops, mistyped. God created all things, but humans are the only ones that he made in his own image.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
tejretics
Posts: 6,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:25:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 2:25:15 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 2:03:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 2:00:20 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:51:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:49:51 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.

Not abuse. I do not advocate that. But animals were given to us to eat. Torturing and gluttony are wrong. Taking what you need isn't.

That's ascribing intrinsic value and superiority to human life without metaethical justification. I could debate you on that since I haven't debated philosophy in a while.

Humans have intrinsic value because God created them. Unfortunately I don't have time to do an official debate right now.

You're saying God didn't create animals?

Oops, mistyped. God created all things, but humans are the only ones that he made in his own image.

Literal interpretation--humans look and think like God. So?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
mishapqueen
Posts: 3,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 2:31:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 2:25:58 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 2:25:15 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 2:03:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 2:00:20 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:51:07 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:49:51 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 1:16:15 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

That's ad hoc evasion. It's an excuse for abusing animals.

Not abuse. I do not advocate that. But animals were given to us to eat. Torturing and gluttony are wrong. Taking what you need isn't.

That's ascribing intrinsic value and superiority to human life without metaethical justification. I could debate you on that since I haven't debated philosophy in a while.

Humans have intrinsic value because God created them. Unfortunately I don't have time to do an official debate right now.

You're saying God didn't create animals?

Oops, mistyped. God created all things, but humans are the only ones that he made in his own image.

Literal interpretation--humans look and think like God. So?

We don't kill and eat humans because we honor God, so therefore we honor each other. Animals were given to us to help us, keep us company, and feed us. It's not wrong to accept the gift God has given us. Animal abuse is wrong because it mishandles the gift God gave us. But if we kill as humanely and swiftly as possible for only what we need, that is appropriate.
You cannot choose whether or not you will live by rules, but you can choose which rules you will live by. --Me

"I was wrong. Squirrels are objectively superior to bunnies in every conceivable dimension."
--Joey

"Silence is golden, duct tape is silver" --PetersSmith

Nunc aut Numquam
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 3:46:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 12:43:08 PM, mishapqueen wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's easy for Christians since we believe God made people in his image, and other animals weren't, and that is why we value human life. But I doubt you'd subscribe to that, lol.

I'm a Christian too, so I accept that this could justify eating meat. However, it is of little use arguing against an atheist.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 4:49:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's important to distinguish between the nature and the individual. Even if pigs actually are more intelligent than newborn babies -- that sounds dubious -- that doesn't change the fact that they belong to an irrational nature. Human babies have a rational nature even if they are not immediately able to exercise their intellectual powers.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 4:52:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 9:28:05 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

As a Christian, this shouldn't be too hard for you. First, humans are created in the image of God. That is the reason given in Genesis for why we shouldn't kill people. Second, because God forbids eating people but not eating meat.

This is another way to go about the rebuttal, if you are arguing with a Christian. It's parallel with my response because the image of God has traditionally been understood to be our intellectual nature.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:38:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

If there is no moral difference between animals and humans then it is just as morally justifiable to eat animals as it is for animals to eat each other.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:42:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 5:38:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

If there is no moral difference between animals and humans then it is just as morally justifiable to eat animals as it is for animals to eat each other.

Pretty much. But this makes no progress of whether or not it is or isn't.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:43:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

Morality is merely a false social constraint intended to control the actions of others.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.


No pigs can't or don't have that potential. They're dumb animals that will never be able to perform calculus, this also forgets the evidence that canibalism is detrimental to your healt and can give you Coujo, which is basically mad cow disease for humans.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

I'd say that they're equally permissible. The reason we don't engage in canibalism is because of the social contract, which is an unspoken agreement we have with each other, and not with animals.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

You're welcome, but that's just a start.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/4/2015 4:49:21 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/4/2015 6:23:31 AM, Philocat wrote:
I know a vegetarian who is very committed the philosophical arguments against eating meat. He argues that:

There is no morally relevant factor that distinguishes all humans from all other animals, hence there are no grounds to allow the eating of all animals yet prohibit the eating of humans.

We cannot appeal to intelligence, since some animals (such as pigs) can be more intelligent than some newborn babies. Yet we eat the former yet we don't eat the latter.

Species membership alone is not a morally relevant factor, and if we cannot find any other morally relevant factor that would allow us to eat all animals but no humans, then we either have to bite the bullet and concede that cannibalism is permissible, or concede that eating animal meat is equally impermissible as cannibalism.

As a meat eater, I am struggling to refute this argument. Can someone help me out?

It's important to distinguish between the nature and the individual. Even if pigs actually are more intelligent than newborn babies -- that sounds dubious -- that doesn't change the fact that they belong to an irrational nature. Human babies have a rational nature even if they are not immediately able to exercise their intellectual powers.
Does a severly mentally disabled child have as much of a rational nature as your everyday pig or a sign-language speaking ape?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic