Dude what if civil rights but with animals

>Dude what if civil rights but with animals

I can't believe Americans regarded this man as a philosopher

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nociceptor#Other_animals
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

well he is an Aussie ubercuck soooo

(((Civil Rights)))

Peter Singer needs to be aborted

Everyone watch the lecture of David Oderberg on Peter Singer.

Moral philosophy in general is in a bit of a rut. It's either people debating Rawls o the neo-Kantians, with a few based Aristotelians and of course my boy Bernard Williams.

obviously animals don't need the right to vote, but do we think its just to kill and rape them needlessly? eating animals is an issue for me

What is wrong with painlessly, unexpectedly, swiftly, killing a being that belongs to a species whose members have no capacity for self-reflection or appreciating the future?

Morality was brought to it's final conclusion with Nietzsche.

im going to rape you no morals to stop me

>t. wikifag

agreed, they're dumber than me so it's okay, let's legalize the murder of retards with sub 100 iq

It's aesthetically displeasing to eat the flesh of another being. I'd rather eat fruit, veggies, and grains then something that smells like ass when its raw.

Morally I would not needlessly kill a being without remorse. It's just not apart of my agenda to perpetuate death to conscious creatures.

user, you're perfectly aware that what you just did is a strawman. I didn't say "dumber", I said something more like "inherently lacking personhood".
>It's aesthetically displeasing to eat the flesh of another being
I don't see how.
>It's just not apart of my agenda to perpetuate death to conscious creatures.
But again, what evil are you doing to them? You're not inflicting them pain, you're only removing something that they can't even appreciate.

Spiritually it disagrees with me too, but i don't think i could explain that aspect

Well how wasn't it? No moral oughts can be concluded and no morality is going to be universal.

No more big questions on the subject remain.

I can't logically prove that it's wrong, so I won't even have that argument with you.

I will only ask you to contemplate that if you were the one slicing the cows throat, or the one "raping" the cow, or taking the calf from the mom,

would you genuinely want that? The consequences of animals products are not just the benign removal of a beings conciousness

>Well how wasn't it?
Well, for example, you could look at people who actively research meta-ethics and see that their opinion is wildly different from what you're proposing, even if they settle on moral anti-realism. Now, they might be all wrong, of course, but I'm going to bet that they know a tiny bit more than you do concerning this subject.
If you want a book that tries to explain how Nietzsche was right but attacking the wrong premises, you could read After Virtue. In it, MacIntyre goes to explain that Nietzsche moral reasoning is perfectly fine...in a tradition of gravely disordered moral language.
>would you genuinely want that?
Let's say I didn't, although I highly doubt it. What does that prove? Is the fact that you wouldn't like to drain sewage in case there's a blockage in your city's sewer system proof that there's something wrong with draining sewage?

lol, this is what urban life and industrialism does to people. you're so alienated from reality you think killing a chicken so you can eat is some great tragedy the average person would break down crying if they witnessed it, when in truth it's banal

Are you a cow? Distinction should be made between human beings and other living organisms. People are tribal in the end. People already rape and pillage from other groups of people not part of their tribe when resources become scarce. It all comes down to tribe. To include cows and other animals into what you consider as your tribe over people is fucking retarded.

Well my knowledge of 20th centuary philosophy is weak. But what big moral questions left are there? For instance for the sake of arguement let's say we agree abortion ends life. Isn't the question "Is abortion immoral" rather silly?

>What does that prove?
That you don't support the needless suffering of other conscious beings, like most empathetic beings.

>Is the fact that you wouldn't like to drain sewage in case there's a blockage in your city's sewer system proof that there's something wrong with draining sewage?

No, it isn't. Still, we don't need to prove good and evil to act in line with our values. All you need to do is ask yourself honestly and deeply, do you want to perpetuate a world where it is acceptable to needlessly cause suffering to other conscious beings.

I never said there wasn't a hierarchy to moral value, chicken=/=human

>But what big moral questions left are there?
Pretty much all of them. The existence of good, the nature of good, what strain of ethics is the most correct one and so on and so forth.
Most meta-ethicists are moral realists, that is they believe moral statements are meaningful, they're either true or false, and that their truth value is dependent on some objective feature of reality. Within moral-realists, some are moral naturalists while others are moral-non naturalists?
>Isn't the question "Is abortion immoral" rather silly?
No? Why would it be?
>That you don't support the needless suffering of other conscious beings
But as I've said, I'm not making them suffer. I only mentioned quick, painless, unexpected death. Where's the suffering in that?

>But as I've said, I'm not making them suffer. I only mentioned quick, painless, unexpected death. Where's the suffering in that?

You are creating an abstraction from reality. As long as meat is on the plate, there is a possibility that you have supported the suffering of a conscious being. You can eliminate that possibility by eating plants.

^

>As long as meat is on the plate, there is a possibility that you have supported the suffering of a conscious being.
That's an argument for improving conditions of cattle and the like, but it's certainly not one that shows eating meat is necessarily or even probably evil.

>dude only pampered Western soyboys in the modern world would be displeased by the killing of an animal! or have any moral objections to it...
t. suburban churchgoer who went hunting with his dad once
Something embarrassing about people who are almost certainly rulecucks in every other facet of their life assuming the role of some enlightened amoral beast when it comes to meat consumption. Gotta get those mouth cummies somehow.

>The existence of good, the nature of good, what strain of ethics is the most correct one and so on and so forth.
If as Nietzche, correctly asserts, morality is a value system created by people than all of those are solved. Good is a label, it exists so far as other classifications exist (such as whether something is 'cool' or 'lame'), there are different goods and they all have their own nature, and no 'ethics' cannot be correct or incorrect.

>Most meta-ethicists are moral realists, that is they believe moral statements are meaningful, they're either true or false, and that their truth value is dependent on some objective feature of reality
It sounds like meta-ethicists consist entirely of people that either reject massive amounts of Nietzsche or never really understand him. "objective feature of reality" 'morality as true or false' etc.

Or maybe it's just people that can only make money discussing ethics and would not want to say that all of the big questions have already been solved: because than it would be harder to get a job analyzing ethics.

>No? Why would it be?
Because it implies there is only one type of morality rather than a pluraity of them. It would only not be silly if you believed there was only one true morality.

>It sounds like meta-ethicists consist entirely of people that either reject massive amounts of Nietzsche
Yes, and?
>It would only not be silly if you believed there was only one true morality.
That's the point.

Would you kill a person if his life is nothing but suffering? Even if he doesn't ask for it?

>if what one person says is true, then it is solved
>even if there are endless contradictions
Relativist education...

despite all this discussion about animal rights, he does have something of value to say with his notion of effective altruism

I have hunted large African plains game. I've seen 2000 lb animals die in front of me for needless causes. It is not something I wish to perpetuate. I can't prove it's wrong, and did you actually expect me to?

This is question of values. Do you want to support and perpetuate the needless death and suffering of conscious animals.

Do really imagine a world where we will be able to eliminate 100% of the needless suffering in farming animals?

How could you prove that to be the case? How could you prove the cow did not sufffer?

>actively research meta-ethics

Nothing more embarrassing than a humanitiesfags pretending to be STEM

All those animals would have died anyway, by all likelihood they would have been literally eaten alive. Every one of those deaths would have been just as "needless" as them getting cleanly shot

Well good luck finding the 'true morality'. I wonder if there's anyone trying to discover the objective 'cool', or seperate true from untrue cool statements. Maybe it has a platonic form or a deity that is the coolness-in-itself.

Not that user but obviously enough of them live long enough to reach sexual maturity and breed. Meat consumption inflates those numbers beyond all fuck and just puts them in hormone hellcages sentenced to certain death.

Safari hunting is distinct from factoring farming, however equally unnecessary.

>Every one of those deaths would have been just as "needless" as them getting cleanly shot

This isn't true. A lion feasting on live prey is morally different than a human going out of their way to kill and eat animals, when alternatives are available.

Morality is a system fashioned by humans in order to serve humans, put simply, a tool, a means to an end, and a necessary one at that.
That end being the avoidance of, yet again explicitly, humanity's decline.

The crux of the matter, to make a very long story short, is this—the animal's freedom from the morality that plagues humankind is no curse, but indeed a divine privilege.
Spare this beast its "rights", its "liberty", for it needs them not.
Its existence, devoid of pretense, good or evil, the animal, in all its majesty, surely inhabits a realm of which men may only dream.

>Well good luck finding the 'true morality'
I think I already have but thanks.

What was the point of this post? Was it to inform us that your opinion on any subject in philosophy bears no value?

So are you ok with me raping your mother

i'm not american and i have farmers in my family. you don't have to be an "amoral beast" to eat meat or kill livestock, the truth is that you really are just a poofter

>i'm a rich boy who's unironically gone on safari hunts
>i feel bad about it now though, you plebs need to stop eating meat
ok, i'm convinced

>This isn't true. A lion feasting on live prey is morally different than a human going out of their way to kill and eat animals, when alternatives are available.

Let us stick to just the topic of hunting for now. If you kill a Deer that means a deer that won't be eaten by a Wolf. In the end of the day you are only going to cause less pain not more.

Domesticated animals are an even trade off since they only exist on our account to begin with so they should be grateful for what life they had

My point is applying the word "research" to philosophy is patently ludicrous.

Safari hunting actually helps animal populations. Hunters pay hundreds of thousands to kill off older animals and that money is used for conservation. Without hunting there would be less incentive to protect these animals and they would get hunted by the dirt poor africans looking to make a quick buck

What about the pain the wolf feels due to going hungry that day? What if the wolf dies of starvation due to not being able to catch a deer?

>Insects & Scavengers benefits

Lol at the idiot carnie-user just a priori assuming that there is a non-tautological definition possible for personhood that excludes different species and includes all humans. Typical carnie brainrot

ITT brainlets unironically defending unnecessary murder and torture

>Domesticated animals are an even trade off since they only exist on our account to begin with so they should be grateful for what life they had
I think you can argue that the ones living almost exclusively in cages and unsanitary conditions wouldn't be "grateful" at all for their existence.

Imagine being such a loser you actually spend time on these debates

Please direct me towards the non-loser discussions I can have on an internet image board.

The issue is you're discussing with people that have spent next to no time looking into this. It's like me, an econ grad, trying to debate economics with the commies on Veeky Forums

In practice, these animals languish in misery for a long time

Tough shit for the Wolf. What right does it have to the deer anymore than I?

Maybe in your brown smelly shithole. In Europe we have ethical standards

>degenerated capitalist shithole
>inbreed protestants
>no philosophical tradition
>"I can't believe retards regard another retard as a philosopher"

The overwhelming majority of farmers take very good care of their animals

Sad but true

I imagine a /Pol/tard saying this after shooting niggers

You never had a pet growing up, did you? Go to bed, Descartes

so he invented PETA?

Trees recognize family members; plants know you're eating them. Plants are literally living beings and are conscious. You're not doing anything but living within a bubble of ignorance that is on the verge of being burst by science.

Which is why we end it fairly early.

African americans have an average IQ of 85. That's more than enough for self-reflection.
>assuming that there is a non-tautological definition possible for personhood that excludes different species and includes all humans
I've assumed no such thing. If there's someone with brainrot, it's you.
Wow, great point yet again, make another one.

>ad hominem + feelies
Try again

Nothing.

based on videos from pakistan

>Wow, great point yet again, make another one.

No need to be such a bitter cunt because you got called out

Saying a very stupid thing isn't calling me out.
If research is "a creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humans, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications" then research does happen in philosophy.

Philosophy never increases knowledge in the world you fucking idiot. If there is any definition of Philosophy as distinct from other disciplines it is this fact

>Philosophy never increases knowledge in the world you fucking idiot.
user, come on, if you have to troll, do it better.

This is not a controversial statement. The moment anything is empirically verifiable, and thus worth calling researchable knowledge its no longer Philosophy you are engaging it.
Philosophy deals with understanding not knowledge

>Philosophy never increases knowledge in the world you fucking idiot.
Prove the world exists? And you're not just some brain in a vat? Go!

>The moment anything is empirically verifiable
Your problem, like all STEMfags, is thinking that only facts relative to empirically verifiable things constitute knowledge.

>You can eliminate that possibility by eating plants.
Take DMT and tell them that.

All very well but don't act as if such activity constitutes research, its a perversion of the term

>muh ad hom and ad hitlerum

10/10 golden post

good post user

Gj

he doesn't know the fascist are the real environmentalists

this post better be bait because a reading of N. that shit just can't be real

literally true. nothing but faggy shit like crying over muh anymals is left for the soyboys of the 21st century

This, even Feminists are openly cynical self serving interest lobbyists
Only self flaggilating white men still fall for the morality meme

Why do some of the retards here actually think that Singer believes animals should vote?

God you guys are so fucking stupid. Please kill yourselves.

No we don't you fucking shitbag. 1/3 of pigs are gassed to death in the UK you know that right? God you cunt. Furthermore, 10% of free range and red tractor cows get their throats slit while they are fully fucking conscious.


> halal is humane


I hope someone slits your moms whore throat and gasses your dumb fucking worthless essence.

One day you fucking cucks are going to have to buy meat from the deep web and I am going to laugh in your ugly faces. I hope all of you here are farmers that way I know you will lose your shitty jobs and livelihoods.

Ask farm and factory owners, they'll tell it's ok.

Eating meat is more ethical than eating vegetables. Really if you cared about life you would eat nothing but steaks and burgers. Modern intensive agriculture requires oceans of pesticide which kill billions of poor insects every single day. These insects were not asked for their consent to be literally gassed and so we cannot eat bread or vegetables with a good conscience. The death of only one cow by contrast supplies hundreds of pounds of rich high calorie food. To say that a cow has a greater right to life than an insect is unfairly privileging one form of life over another, and we must strive to maximize utility where we can.

No, that's not why.

If you're serious (which I doubt) then:

>Modern intensive agriculture requires oceans of pesticide which kill billions of poor insects every single day
Half of the worlds crops go to livestock. If we stopped eating animals the square kilometers of land we use for agriculture would not go up, but actually would go down dramatically. Saving more of your precious insect lives than you can imagine
>The death of only one cow by contrast supplies hundreds of pounds of rich high calorie food.
continuing from my previous point, given how much plants you need to feed a cow before you can eat it, you're actually losing an incredible ammount of calories in the process
>To say that a cow has a greater right to life than an insect is unfairly privileging one form of life over another, and we must strive to maximize utility where we can.
Insects lack the capability to have an emotional reaction to pain (aka, to actually feel pain) due to their absense of nociceptors

Daily reminder that Peter Singer places more value on the lives of shrimps than healthy 5 year old human children.

I'm not sure how I stand with the notion of an animal's right to live, since it seems most of our empathy comes from assigning human capacities to animals in that regard, but I am a vegetarian for 2 reasons and these I feel are inescapable and why I feel that (nowadays at least) it's everyone's moral duty to at least reduce our animal product intake:
1- Ecological. The animal industry is one of the main agents against the environment. From nocious gasses rivaling the automovile industry, to soil erosion, all of the problems of modern agriculture could be charged to the meat industry since it amplifies them by demanding crops, to calorie inefficiencies, etc.
2- As a boicott towards unethical farming. Factory farming is a barbaric practise, and it is proven that animals do produce an emotional reaction to pain. The lack of factory farming at the same time does not assure ethical farming though, which is very rare anywhere.
I believe that if we managed to regulate farming to the point where all animals lead comfortable lives and die painlessly, on top of reducing drastically animal production to alleviate ecological problems, I could eat meat again if I ever decide that animals don't have an inherent right to live (which is quite possible desu)

>due to their absense of nociceptors
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nociceptor#Other_animals

Oh i forgot to say that also, it's ok to eat oysters

STEM autists are like Proxy Paige, they are never low enough, they can always scrap the bottom of the well a bit more.
Who do you think devised the research methodologies applied in science?