Is Zizek going crazy? Why would anyone be a vegetarian, except for religious or health reasons?

you hurt my feelings, kill yourself

>going crazy
>going

Haha, very good, you make me laugh, you go to Gulag.

you know what? your statement is falsifiable
just watch earthlings until the end
youtube.com/watch?v=PX_67IsyUaI

One can believe in absolute morality even if one doesn't believe in a "higher power".
I'm an atheist, but to me it is obvious to the point of being almost axiomatic that I should try not to cause needless suffering.

>feel empathy
>dont want to eat something you feel identified with
>empathy towards animals is greater than gluttony
>eat tasteless plants instead
is it really that hard to understand?

Eating meat is really hard to justify philosophically unless you are going for hardcore, II don't give a heck anthropocentrism, which is intellectually lazy. It's a majority position among philosophers for a reaosn.

What did you expect from people who pratice babbies abortion?

But your opponents would say that it's obvious that I should do whatever it takes to make others suffer in my place....that others suffering is preferable to me suffering.....

To elaborate:
axiom: some animals (pets and exotic animals) have rights and don't deserve harm ie. cats and dogs. almost no one would willingly harm a puppy.

Now you need to explain, why cats and dogs have these rights but chicken and cows don't. Since the distinction is down to humans preference any justification is going to be fairly anthropocentrism. But how do you reconcile the fact that you have already conceded animals (pets) some rights? How do you argue against someone that wants to eat a bunch of puppies without being vulnerable to the same argument regarding chickens, cows. etc? I mean, you can do it but it's not nearly as convincing as just going vegetarian, from a philosophical standpoint.

>almost no one would willingly harm a puppy.
This was never the case globally though until western influences hit the east hardcore. I mean imagine the culture shock of going online to post about the delicious dog you just had and then getting death threats because americans literally cannot fathom how anyone would ever eat an animal***

There is literally nothing wrong with eating animals, including cats and dogs, people continue to do so. Do not let some retarded western view infiltrate this concept as they perverted the human body.

>Eating meat is really hard to justify philosophically
Only if you follow utilitarianism.

tldr didnt read but turns out global meat production is actually really terrible for the environment. Look it up

How come, what is your justification? Why shouldn't you focus entirely on your own pleasure, since there is no intrinsic meaning in anything? Why should I care about others, why should I even bother with simple animals who are incredibly delicious?

This is a serious question, I have asked this question (how can there be an intrinsic morality that is imperative, or at least "right" for us to follow it) here many times, yet no one answered it. I'd like to make it clear that I don't follow any religion, but I am not an individualist, an egoist, in the extreme sense of the word, because I simply am not capable of living like that, it is too depressing. I do not believe in any intrinsic morality, yet I follow one simply because I enjoy it.

>This was never the case globally though until western influences hit the east hardcore.

I don't even necessarily disagree but we are on a western board here for the sake of arguing.

You still need to formulate a sound moral theory that somehow arbitrarily gives certain animals rights and others not.

>You still need to formulate a sound moral theory that somehow arbitrarily gives certain animals rights and others not.
No, you need not do any such thing, you can easily set up a moral theory where "rights" aren't a thing.

Sure, but denying the idea of "rights" in general is a pretty far argumentative leap just for some steak, lel

I don't eat puppies or kittens because they are cute, and I had a strong relationship with a dog when I was a kid, and I have one now with my cat. I don't care if people are eating dogs in China, I dislike the idea because dogs are cute, but it's their choice.

Basically dogs and cats are easier to feel empathy for, but you can eat them, I don't care.

And about torturing animals? Well, most of the stories about torturing animals in slaughterhouses are completely fake. It makes the meat stiff and doesn't taste good. If I ever see someone raping any animal of any kind, I'll feel a strong hatred for that person because he is surely a degenerate, and thats fucked up. I think it's completely fine to eat meat because it is delicious, torturing animals is not fine because most of the time it is useless, and doing even worse things like rape should be banned by law. Basically, slaughtering animals for food is completely fine. As long as it has some use, and I won't feel too empathetic, it's fine.

>bearded slobvenian man mumbles incoherently again
>news at 11

If you do it for some steak, sure, if you were going to do it anyway, no.
I don't see what's necessarily wrong from a virtue ethical standpoint in killing animals in order to eat them.

>One can believe in absolute morality even if one doesn't believe in a "higher power".

No you can't fag. Nietzsche literally discussed this 130 years ago moron.

The death of God literally means that morality is just different perspectives.

Having empathy for animals is "crazy"? I mean, Im not a vegetarian or anything, but watching videos of slaughterhouses is pretty fucking hard to stomach.

And to all the people talking about morality in this thread; this has nothing to do with "morality". Hes simply pointing out the fact that most people are ok with eating meat despite the fact they would be absolutely horrified by the process of how meat is produced. I dont see what this has to do with whether or not objective morality exists

brb gonna go suck a bunch of cocks

>I don't even necessarily disagree but we are on a western board here for the sake of arguing.
Oh for sure, but I'm just re-injecting how fluid "rights" actually are into the discussion. If someone wanted to, they could be adopting cats/dogs constantly and then frying them up. There aren't any consequences unless neighbours speak up in that case.

>vegetarianism is a western view
lol

...

Yes you can, you'll find plenty of discussions on the independence of ethics from the existence of God have developed since Nietzsche.

>The death of God literally means that morality is just different perspectives.

No it doesnt. It means that religion is no longer the central pillar of society. Everything used to be done in the name of god, now its done in the name of society itself

Let's do some comparative neuro-anatomy and discuss the fact that we use beef instead of cow, and pork instead of pig, and consider whether or not lamb and lamb is the counterargument to kaput the whole "we know it's totally fucked up but we do it and attempt to distance ourselves by giving mr. pig's work a nom de plume".

>sound moral theory that somehow arbitrarily gives certain animals rights and others not.

There is no logical basis for protecting some animals and not others. There is no way to distinguish food animals from non food animals scientifically. A moral argument would be absolutely silly. Animals are things, things have no moral rights or value. Only human beings do. So we cant eat humans (homo sapien sapiens) people who think dogs are worth protecting and eating cow or chicken is ok. That is an arbitrary distinction. Setting humans aside as the only animal that cannot be killed is.not arbitrary because we are the only animal that can create and appreciate a classification. There are a great many animals that will eat humans. We are not a protected class from consumption in the animal kingdom. Any study of the reality of nature and animal behavior leads us to see that there is no distinction delineated in nature in anyway that separates the food animals from the not food animals. Everything is free to eat anything it wants. There is nothing inherent to nature that separated doggies from cows. It's meat. The lion will eat both, the snake will eat both, and we will eat both. It matters not in any way.

Why do vegetarians get upset with humans eating cows but not lions eating other animals? Why are lions free to eat what it desires, but humans are not?

Hot dog 4 lyf3

Zizek isn't a nihilist you stupid fuck. Not every philosopher who doesn't believe in God follows your shitty 'skimmed the back cover of Twilight of the Idols' ethical stance.

those cocks will still need to leave
christs message is water- and other forms of fluid-proof

Just because you can find them doesn't mean they are legitimate.

>1. Producing meat is polluting
Not everywhere. Some land is too far up north to produce any wheat for man, but crops for beasts it will grow just fine.
2. Is this an argument against eating meat?

>I dont see what this has to do with whether or not objective morality exists
What do you expect? This board is full of psueds who have to constantly jack off their own intellect by randomly name dropping philosophers and refrencing philisophical concepts when its totally irrelevant. These are the people you meet at parties who interrupt a casual conversation about tv shows with a random rambling about the categorical imperative

>we know it's totally fucked up but we do it and attempt to distance ourselves
>this is what fatherless urbanite numales actually believe
Stop being a retarded mangina, go innawoods, shoot something, skin it, gut it, cook and eat it. Then you will hopefully stop posting this autistic drivel.

>going to a party anyways
As my good friend JK Rowling wrote, When guards hum, levi's sad.

Yes, the same way goes for Nietzsche. Just because he hold moral anti-realism to be necessarily true under atheism, doesn't mean he's right. In fact, I don't see how he is right.

>Why are lions free to sleep all day, shit wherever and have a harem full of pussy, but humans are not?
Your argument is shit, mate.

>muh, I wanna do what I wanna do!
>muh, your rules are stoopid and they bully me!
Yeah, whatever, pal. Nietzsche sounds pretty moralistic to me...

people abort children
people eat animals.
people punish people
people euthanize his pets
people put you a name when you cant say a shit.
people go to take long walks with his dogs and make a breath when reach at his door.
people eat plants with Black and White sausage Rolling with her saliva
people love everybody in the abstract
people is always the savior of something.

daily reminder that all vegetarians will make "reserves " to cows and chickens totally far away from her lifes.

Humans can do all of those things though friend

I think the best thing about mass 3D printing tissue and organs are not the millions of saved lives, but the fact that all the vegans will finally shut up.

>tasteless plants

Fruit is damn delicious for the most part, and you would have to be really glattonous in order to eat enough fruit to damage your body.

pic related: he ate way too much fruit (6kg everyday) and suffered intestinal problems for his entire life cause of it

You do realize he was pointing towards human suffering and not vegetarianism?

Where is the "absolute" part of any morality, if there is no grounding for such a thing?

>sleep all day, shit wherever and have a harem full of pussy, but humans are not?

But there are people who sleep all day and have harems of pussy, user.

Aren't you just proving my point. There is nothing that the other animals do that we are not free to do.

Are vegetarians going to run out into the jungles and stop all the other animals from eating each other because being eaten is painful for them? Imagine how morally superior they could feel of the accomplished that!

Who says there is no grounding for such thing?

So Zizek doesn't believe in the existence of morality? I can understand the "nature is indifferent" relativist perspective but if he feels a very human empathy how can he not even admit that some element of morality is innate (and therefore exists external to subjectivity)?

Am I missing something here? He seems a bit contradictory.

>There is no logical basis for protecting some animals and not others.
How about there function you fucking idiot
A good hunting dog is not something you would eat, because it serves as a tool. Thus you would not eat dogs because of their use, as opposed to say, a cow that can only produce milk and more cows.

So what is the grounding then?

Because for any axiom you're going to bring up, I can give you another, and thus the absolutism is gone at first sight.

>How about there function you fucking idiot
A spider should take over all rights you currently own 2 b h

He was skeptic too about his skepticism, yet he thought that, given the reality of things, he had no reason to believe in God.

By the way Nietzsche is not a militant atheist, you're probably conflating his opinion to that position cause of his anti-christianity: well, keep in mind that his criticism of the Christian faith did not stem from the fact that there is no proof for that (since he transvalued the value of truth: something being false or arbitrary does not necessarily mean that we should aboid it), rather he criticized the effects it had on the European population in his various forms (mainly Protestantism and Catholicism). Nietzsche was being far more pragmatic than you may think.

>So what is the grounding then?
It depends on which current of moral realism you're following. Why ask me these questions when you can just go on plato.stanford.edu and read up a much better explanation of this stuff?
I know, I'm criticizing user, not Nietzsche. Nietzsche actually had a quite strong moral system, very aristocratic in nature.

I'm asking you, I'm not asking plato.stanford.edu.

It's more interesting to hear what actual living people have to say than people who are dead.

Oh, give up, troll! You lost.

The people editing that encyclopedia are quite alive afaik.
Anyway, I'm a moral naturalist, which means I believe in moral realism and I think moral facts are natural facts.
Anything specific you want me to elaborate on?

>function

Function is a highly subjective basis of judgement. That is not a solid way of reasoning. Cows were domesticated from wild beasts by people to serve a function as a source food, hunting dogs were domesticated from wild beasts to serve a different function (also to get more meat). So humans created modern tame animals from wild animals and bred characteristics into them by husbandry witch further reinforced the functions that humans gave them. You are creating the function and defining the function at the same time. Being food for humans was not the function of grazing beasts and wolves before humans came along. That function serves us. We subjectively choose how to use them. That is not somehow scientifically inherent to what they are in nature. You can dissect the cow and the dog and not find anything physical and given to them by natural evolution that creates in them the functions of being human food and hunting helpers. We gave them those functions. Not nature. Nature made them both animals with meat. The wolf eats the grazing beast. We eat the grazing beast. We can also eat the wolf. Or we can arbitrarily protect it.

>go innawoods, shoot something, skin it, gut it, cook and eat it.
But this is not something I take issue with. Never has been. Doing that is very different than the conditions in which pigs or chicken live in. You're being willfully dense.

>which means I believe in moral realism and I think moral facts are natural facts.

Which would be a pretty gross violation of the is-ought gap.

Tell me, which values flow from the existence of facts?

>Which would be a pretty gross violation of the is-ought gap.
user, before I go on, I want to ask you on question. Do you find mentioning the is-ough gap a really original, difficult to think about objection? You probably don't. Yet moral naturalism is quite popular among philosophers. Don't you think people who basically think about this stuff for a living have never considered this objection?
>which values flow from the existence of facts?
I dont' think that the fact-value (value as in, moral value) distinction is a thing, so...

What about the fact that in other regions (e.g. China) they do eat dogs? Or how about the fact that we don't eat cat's even though they aren't very functional? Even your cow example is flawed - cows can are used for pulling carts and stuff like that.

Animals have consciousness, ergo, we happily MURDER them.

brb gonna gulp down a whole load of cum

>he doesn't know how fattening and unnutritious 90% of fruit is

milk is p good dude

*transubstantiates it into the body of christ so it's not gay*

>different

It's not any different. We figured out more effective hunting methods and cultivation methods over time. You are subjectively judging hunting a wild beast as being somehow more gentle and humane than farm breeding and slaughtering. For who? The wild bras suffers a great deal as the arrow or bullet tears into its body and it bleeds or suffocates possibly for hours in absolute terror the entire time. It's not somehow more morally right to hunt a beast and slaughter it in the wild. It's an animal of prey, it lives its whole life being hunted by us, the wolf, the bear, snakes. From the time its born until it finally is caught and killed by something it lives in fear. Your factory full of chickens do t want to die either but it doesn't matter what they want, or the wild dear either because there is a smarter, and faster, and more efficient predator that is hungry. So it does. Saves your morality. Vegetarians are as bad as christfags.

Except for religious reasons, why would anyone not kill for their own gain if they had good reason to believe they wouldn't be caught?

Perhaps because the existence of a God is not the only source from which we can derive a system of morality. Might I suggest taking an introductory class on ethics and studying varying ethical systems like Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, ethical egoism (i.e. bullshit), social contract theory, etc.?

You seem to think that there's a ghost lurking in that porkchop... Kid...

One can obviously use an animals cognitive and emotional abilities as criterion. Your argument is flawed.

Well, i'm not a vegetarian. But I really have no understanding of how you see no difference in hunting food for yourself and raising billions of hormone pumped for mass consumption. The conditions most animals have been raised in are very different from their lives in the wild.
There are a lot of examples freely available, but it occurs to me your inability to see any sort of disparity in the quality of life and treatment in these situations must be the mark of someone really under a heavy burden.
I don't know why you jump to the conclusion that I think hunting for yourself is more "gentle".

user pls love me
im not a spook

Quick question.
Why can't we slaughter and eat psychopaths?

Your argument is flawed.

Largely legal systems stand in the way but if you don't care for such, go 4 it.

>Don't you think people who basically think about this stuff for a living have never considered this objection?

I think it's more likely that they do a sleight of hand and refuse to answer the objection instead.

I mean, if values flowed from naturalism, this could easily be used to justify a society based on racist hierarchy.

>The conditions most animals have been raised in are very different from their lives in the wild.
and lives in the wild are comfortable?

Oh, see, you're a fucking pleb joke! I am a hunter, and you clearly are not! You're some pathetic dorito-dusted porker hiding in his mom's basement breathing through his mouth and sputtering at all dem idjits on da internet! Come fight me from your safe space, fatfuck! I dare you! I doubledog dare you, fuckwit.
What a joke.

>Largely legal systems stand in the way but if you don't care for such, go 4 it.
I'm just curious. A lot of people might say that animals have no feelings, or they can't feel pain, therefore it is ok. Why not kill some and eat some psychos? Offer them up at the deli. We can simply call them psychos to keep the mammalian beef-cow type distance if you want.

>he's acting as if being pumped with hormones is some insanely awful life
I'm assembling a trons takedown of that comment right fucking now bitch.

>I think it's more likely that they do a sleight of hand and refuse to answer the objection instead.
Not really.
>if values flowed from naturalism, this could easily be used to justify a society based on racist hierarchy
Why?

Being blind and afraid and hardly able to move seems good to some people I guess.

>Your argument is flawed

Care to elaborate? I don't see why you'd dispute the validity of such a criterion. One of the primary reasons people in general privilege humans over other animals is that we view ourselves as smarter, capable of experiencing a wider range of emotions (and more intense emotional states), and we have a higher degree of self-awareness when something "good" or bad" is happening to us.

>A lot of people might say that animals have no feelings, or they can't feel pain
I mean, scientifically this has been proven false. They can feel pain. Whether or not this correlates to 'feelings' is yet to be understood. This is why so many groups now make it a priority that animals are killed in as painless an option possible. We're not yet at the point where this is the mandatory standard though. For instance there are people who argue halal meats should never alter their methods because it's bigoted.

I don't know why you're curious though, I'm also fine with that suggestion. Largely it's this weird 'human supremacy' view that has created these legal systems in which you cannot just eat up another human. However, that hasn't stopped people lol

It's the life they live - they HAVE to like it. Ever wonder what a troll is like and why they do what they do? Now you know.

so is it immoral for other animals to eat meat? or only when humans do it?

Fug I got diddled
Still it's been thousands of years since we bred them like we have, isn't it too late to change that? Aren't cows still forced to just produce meat and milk?

>Why?

I don't know? Maybe the fact that blacks have lower group IQ than whites could be used as a justification for restricting their rights.

It is a fact that blacks in America have lower group IQ than whites, so if you want to take the naturalism route be careful what you wish for.

It follows that chopping them for their meat would be a mercy kill?

He's trolling you!! Stahp, for your own sake.