Food and Ethics

>Can you be ethically consistent and eat animal products?
Sure, just change/disregard your premises.

Well that humans are of moral value is quite fundamental, if they weren't that would mean that we could rape, torture and kill those humans without it being immoral.

wtf are you talking about

>ethical consistency
What a joke.

So? You were asking about consistency.

Pro tip:
Illegal != Immoral

Could you define self-consciousness? How do you know you are self-conscious? How do you know that other humans are self-conscious? How do you know animals aren't self-conscious?

But animals have no morals?

>What are some good literature that go in depth about this?
None. Everything written on the subject is just virtue-signalling propaganda.

you don't understand philosophy. you're saying "x is fundamental because if we had no x then the things which x says are bad would not be deemed bad". that's like saying "dictatorships are fundamental because if we had no dictatorships then the things that dictatorships say are bad, such as a free press, would not be deemed bad" it's a non argument, its just a lot of words pointing out an obvious fact that if a normative system did not exist then that which normative systems oppose would not be opposed.

Are you saying that rape, torture and killing are moral?

no that is not what he is saying at all cathy newman

Don't worry
FTFY
Do you think that there are people lacking moral value?
So you consider killing, raping and torture not immoral?
We do
Why? Pythagoras was vegetarian, was he just a virtue signaling fag?

>So you consider killing, raping and torture not immoral?
op confirmed for complete retard.

it's kinda disingenuous to equate humans and animals
you can't tell a bear to stop eating you

Well if you argue that certain humans aren't of moral value then what is? And why do we cosider killing humans unnecessarily immoral?

>Well if you argue that certain humans aren't of moral value then what is?
that is not what I am arguing
> And why do we cosider killing humans unnecessarily immoral?
that is what I'm asking you. why do you think that humans are of moral value?

Well if you're arguing against human moral value you automatically imply that certain humans could just be treated as objects.
You can't tell geese to stop gang raping either, why would we consider things moral or immoral based on what animals do?

>Well if you're arguing against human moral value
was never arguing against that

Because they have a subjective experience system similar to mine and I know that certain actions hurt and damage which I wouldn't want happening to me so I don't consider it moral to do it to others. Golden rule basically.

Veganism as a global philosophy is anti natalism for the animals they supposedly want to protect.

Well I was never arguing about the legality of immoral actions.

If you can just contrive premises like that, then:

P1 - Humans are of higher moral value than animals
P2 - It is ethical for entities of higher moral value to consume entities of lower moral value
C - It is ethical for humans to consume animals

No, I'm not saying this is a useful or convincing argument for C, I'm saying it's *just as useful and convincing* as OP's line of reasoning.

>Because they have a subjective experience system similar to mine and I know that certain actions hurt and damage which I wouldn't want happening to me so I don't consider it moral to do it to others. Golden rule basically.
How do you make the jump from knowing that you and other humans evaluate experiences similarly to stating that humans have moral value? You are just listing off a state of affairs then somehow thinking that it means you have made a moral argument.

How? Seems like a pretty baseless comparison. I think anti natalism is retarded but veganism on the otherhand a logical lifestyle choice for three reasons: health, environment and ethics.

>Do you think that there are people lacking moral value?
I think moral value is something attributive, a value judgment, not an quality proper.

Your premises and subsequent questions are malformed nonsense to me, to be honest.

*a quality

Morals are not absolute. They're subjective and contextual.

Even in current Western society, it's generally acceptable to kill someone who is trying to hurt or kill you. When a rapist gets raped in prison, people call it "poetic justice". Torture is often seen as a necessary evil in the name of public safety.

Are all humans of the same moral value? Couldn't this turn into:

P1 - White humans are of higher moral value than niggers and kikes
P2 - It is ethical for entities of higher moral value to consume, gas and enslave entities of lower moral value
C - It is ethical for white humans to genocide the subhumans, race war now!

Because nobody is going to raise and take care of expensive farm animals if they aren't paid for it. Bovines will become as extinct as the auroch in short order. Also switching all agriculture to row cropping corn and soy to feed a vast vegan diet would create dust bowls all over the globe.

>Couldn't this turn into:
Well, yes, it could. Since no one here has provided a useful/universal means of establishing the "moral value" of anything, any kind of argument along those lines is valid as long as it's formally sound.

I am consistent by just remaining open to the idea of eating house pets and humans, and am making no claim of a moral reason for eating meat other than "I like it"

Vegans on the other hand are nearly never consistent, they are starting from the assumption that all life has value but then nearly always treating different forms of life differently. They don't even value their own lives that much.

>there are plenty of animals who do not suffer, like fish.
This myth has been debunked some 30 years ago.

Because I consider things that can experience feelings and emotions of moral value. I don't want to cause extreme discomfort to those entities like I don't want it happen to me, when such things happen I would consider it immoral.

Never thought of the parallels, really, but it is true that most outspoken anti-natalists are also vegans.

>Because I consider things that can experience feelings and emotions of moral value.
First of all, that is a different claim than you just made above. Second of all, stating that you "consider" certain things to have moral value does not explain to me your reasoning. I just asked you why you believe something and you said because you believe it. Same thing applies to the rest of your post.

Do you consider killing dogs unnecessarily moral?
Well in the context of animal agriculture, is it okay to kill those animals?
What about people that love animals, animal sanctuaries, petting zoos and reintroduction into the wild? To assume farm animals would go extinct when we stop eating them is quite ridiculous.
Also when everyone would go vegan there would be LESS soy and corn produced than there is now. You know that that is mostly animal feed, right?

>heh, I'm spending my entire life in a crowded cage being raised solely for the purpose of being slaughtered and consumed by a more powerful animal, but at least my species hasn't gone extinct, whatever the heck that means to my pig brain !!!!

My dude, I just ate half a chicken for dinner and even I think that's the most retarded of all pro-meat arguments.

Moral value are entities that have some sort of consciousness and feel stuff, I guess.

>Humans are of moral value.
No
>Animals deserve to not be eaten by virtue of having some semblance of sentience or ability other feel pain
I don't thinks it's immoral to inflict pain in itself, it think that is completely natural
>That's a naturalistic fallacy
But I want to be more in tune with nature, and nature doesn't have to time to care about what they eat if they biological programmed to eat it. I eat meat because it's convenient and tastes good. I spare whatever animals I favor. I'm fine with that.

Well I do consider certain forms of life lower than other forms of life yet don't kill them unnecessarily except parasitical entities like mosquitoes. I do value my life more than other life.
Where are you getting those assumptions from?
Also would you eat human flesh if it where legal in some country? Even if you know you would be supporting an industry that is raping, torturing and killing those humans against their will?

>Herd and flock animals are uncomfortable in crowds
Neck yourself you projecting, personifieing pseud.

>Also would you eat human flesh if it where legal in some country
Not him but yes, I want to be tolerant of that vibrant and beautiful country. In fact they should move to my country, we need more doctors, lawyers, and inventors here to stimulate the economy

>eat only kosher meat even though I'm an athiest, just because I know that they have to slaughter their animals in the most kvlt way possible

>Do you consider killing dogs unnecessarily moral?
"Unnecessarily moral"? Do you mean unnecessarily cruel/evil? If so, then it'd solely depend on the context. I don't like killing dogs for no reason, but I dislike leaving a dog to suffer even more, so killing would be preferable in some instances.

Not sure where you're going with this, though. I've now told you how I feel about things. That doesn't really get us anywhere, does it? There's no universality in my personal feelings.

They slit the throats of chickens and let them bleed out upside down. Not that I have a problem just thought I'd inform you.

>Heh I love being near my friends. This is so fun huh guys?! EXACTLY how we are supposed to live and EXACTLY how other herd and flock animals live in nature!!! There is no difference at ALL! If were humans we could even watch nature documentaries and what we would see would be wild hogs living EXACTLY like this!!

I know, it's awesome

Well it is difficult to express in words, maybe I'm just a brainlet but morality is something applied to things of moral value. What do we consider thing of moral value?
Things that can experience and feel, things that have some sort of subjectivity.
Simple things are hard to explain.

>Can you be ethically consistent and eat animal products?
I think yes. Animals aren't moral subjects and thus they can't have the same moral status (as moral objects) as humans.

They look happy t b h. Not sure what the range of emotions is for a pig, maybe it goes from aggressive to lazy buy I doubt it's having an existential crisis right now. It's probably thinking "when am I going to eat next"

Ah,so the not kill/kill line is drawn at the mosquito? My line just so happens to be drawn at animals of more biological complexity, so what?

I'd just choose to get the human meat from a company that asks humans if they want to be eaten first. This standard doesn't need to be applied to animals.

What's your point with that pic? That's a temporary holding pen. That's not where they're raised. Stop being such a suburbanite.

>Things that can experience and feel have moral value
>Tfw feel nothing but hatred and a mischievous sense of fun and therefore have moral value

I can't get how you could say that humans aren't based on moral value. That would cause you to deem certain humans on the same level as objects. Are you sure that you don't consider humans of moral value?
Also you're using an electronic device living inside a house shitposting on an internet forum, how is that natural? Do you hunt your meat or get it from the supermarket? Natural meat isn't convenient to get, plucking some fruits is way easier.

>I can't get how you could say that humans aren't based on moral value.
Don't take this the wrong way, but what's your fucking native langue?

>morality is something applied to things of moral value. What do we consider thing of moral value?
You are putting the cart before the horse. In order to "apply" morality to "things of moral value" one would first need to establish the truth of a moral principle that demonstrated there to be "things of moral value". The point I'm making is that you are skipping over trying to demonstrate that things have moral value.
>Things that can experience and feel, things that have some sort of subjectivity.
See, here you're reciting a list of things you consider to have moral value but you never made the case for that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_biting_in_pigs

Plucking some fruits from where? My apartment complex? And no, not all humans are of equal value. Some are best locked up in a pen, euthanized, or shot dead in the street.

>That would cause you to deem certain humans on the same level as objects. Are you sure that you don't consider humans of moral value?
Yup. Not everyone is equal end of story.
>You have technology isn't that unnatural
No, not really. It's made by forces of nature (us) although too much technological dependence can be a bad thing sure.
>It's way easier to pick fruit
That have to be harvested seasonally at the right time so they aren't too ripe, and then have to be stored for future consumption. Kind of like cattle , except in certain climates all you really have access to is meats.

Luckily we live in a golden age of technology so I can spend my days thinking about random shit and enjoying myself instead of worrying about starving in the winter.

This is just sarcasm, right?
Have you watched footage of kosher slaughter houses? They are disgusting.
I meant that if you killed the dog for no reason (unnecessarily) just to eat it, moral?
How are they not moral subjects, do you consider skinning a dog alive, moral?
Well for me the kill/no kill line is drawn at a central nervous system. Your standard is arbitrary and inconsistent.
You feel hatred, and probably also pain when I stab you. You're of moral value.

Typical vegan. Didn't even read the whole article. It's a totally preventable issue even in a factory farming environment.

>How are they not moral subjects
Because they don't have the capacity to act morally.

>Columbine shooters are if moral value
L O L

The strongest argument against carnism isn't moral but aesthetic.

Simply put, meat is disgusting to the point of cosmic horror; carnists can only avoid choking on it through a sort of mass sleepwalking.

To those less brainwashed to human herd sensibilities, even the mildest of meat has a vile animal must, reeks of blood, lymph, pheromones, and a touch of feces/urine. Naturally it's a breeding ground of bacteria and parasites. Anything not fresh out the abattoir is liable to be in some intermediate stage of decay.

Yet these most manifest sensual aspects are nothing compared to the libidinal aspect. Imagine an ample-bellied man smacking his lips as he scarfs down an Arby's sandwich, the dead stinky flesh folded out like an old whore's vagina vagina with syphilitic yellow cheese sauce oozing out; or, if you prefer, a cute-but-just-slightly-plump girl "mmm"ing in pleasure as a big fat phallus of a hotdog has its way with her.

If you asked such people if they loved animals, they would no doubt answer yes, unhesitatingly. Perhaps baby-talking with a dog or cat furnishes their nihilistic lives with some small happiness. But they've seen glimpses of the videos. Cowards, they hide their faces before the truth of what they are--the sunless mausoleums of soft, pink, feeling flesh, writhing and screaming to die; evil that would humble the holocaust, equal only to Lovecraftian horror. It is this foul secret that powers their brains, that makes its home in their thighs or bellies, that moves their lips as they say "I love you" to their lovers, meat on their breaths, before their mutual rape.

You disgusting faggots.

>He that is not being born is busy dying
Your discomfort with death and decay is childish.

2/10

You're missing the point. The fact that you can distract the pigs doesn't make it morally acceptable to force them through such a shit existence in the first place.
And I'm not a vegan or vegetarian. I just accept the fact that I contribute to the suffering of sentient beings instead of going through mental gymnastics to feel better about myself.

Learn to read 105 iq-let; I would be thrilled if all livestock suddenly died and rotted into the ground. It's life where the problem lies--wasteful, suffering animal life, and decadent, cruel human life.

It's just an abnormal condition though, it doesn't characterize the condition of ALL pigs. This is like saying that because urban environments cause some percentage of humans to have mental break downs that we ALL do and so we ALL must turn back to our natural hunter-gatherer state.

>shit existence in the first place.
They seem fine tho. It's you who seems to think they are having a bad time. Why?

Dutch
:/ isn't it self evident when we look at the world and what gets considered good and bad?
Grow some crops somewhere, you get my point.
Those humans you don't consider of moral value, why is that? Because of their actions? Maybe they raped and killed someone they didn't consider having moral value. What have farm animals done?
Which humans have no moral value and why? Also eating meat isn't more natural.
What about retarded humans or babies that have no clue what morality even means?

Nice try with the offhand dismissal, but it's obvious you're upset, or you wouldn't have bothered replying.

The knowledge of the self. I know that I am me, and I am, unlike for instance a dishwasher or bacteria, aware of my own actions and life. While it is true that I can never really know that other humans are self-conscious, I think it is fair to assume that since I am, and I am a human, they are too. It is also unlikely that humans would be able to express their inner experience if they did not have one.
I do not know that animals aren't self-conscious, but I cannot say that there is anything that makes it likely that they are. The burden of proof is on you.

You keep inserting all these subjective adjectives. They don't even make sense on a universal level. There are people who eat meat and are not living in decadence.

Farm animals only procreate by rape and eat on use of force. Morals are human constructs animals do not live with them.

>I meant that if you killed the dog for no reason (unnecessarily) just to eat it, moral?
I would *personally* say that it's immoral, but as I've said numerous times now, my *feelings* are no useful standard here. My feelings are wholly arbitrary, not the basis for any kind of universally applicable moral framework.

But yes, I do think killing dogs for fun or for food is immoral. That's my personal moral standard.

>Which humans have no moral value and why? Also eating meat isn't more natural.
The ones I don't like because they get in May why and behave in manners negative for society and thus me
>Eating meat isn't more natural
It's actually WAY more natural

Why are you guys hating on pigs? They are smarter than dogs.

Nice strawman my friend.Of course some people who eat meat aren't living in decadence. But you probably are. Do you mean to tell me you're i.e. an African subsistence farmer?

*e.g. whoops

So? Jews are smarter than humans too.

You're the one who started with the straw man. When I point out you're making gross generalization you accuse me of the straw man? Go burn yourself.

I'm upset by your wannabe magniloquent stupidity more than anything

I.q. maybe, but dogs have a higher emotional intelligence. Pigs don't give a fuck about anyone. They are the artists of livestock

Your reading comprehension seems to be a little low my friend. All of my claims are not general but in fact restricted to industrial animal agriculture, as is strongly implied by paragraph 4 of my original post.

Please try not to misdirect your anger at me; you have only yourself to blame for your depravity. But you can be free of these unpleasant thoughts if you just give up one simple group of foods :^)

How is the burden of proof on me, you're the one defining self-consciousness and your explanation is vague and of no use. Farm animals have a very similar central nervous system as us, I could argue that self-consciousness gets enabled by a central nervous system.
So? We are humans shouldn't we then leave those animals alone according to your logic?
I'm arguing on an individual level here because there are a lot of people that consider morality as subjective. But what differs between killing a dog and a farm animal that makes it okay?
>The ones I don't like because they get in May why and behave in manners negative for society and thus me
So you consider killing them would be a proper action against them. (Imagine not being in a country where this would be illegal)
>It's actually WAY more natural
How and why? Why can't our bodies handle cholesterol like natural meat eaters can?
That EQ argument is baseless assumption and please tell me how gassing Jews is moral again.

>retarded humans
as long as they conserve some form of rational capability they still have the capacity to act morally
>babies
They have the capacity to act morally teleologically. Not acting morally towards babies could possibly mean an infringment of their right to act morally in the future.

Yes, it was in fact meant to be upsetting, in order to pierce through your ironclad complacency and denial. Glad to see my rhetoric was effective.

>Because they have a subjective experience system similar to mine
>subjective experience system
can you explan this, please?.