debate

@atmousfear "Prisons aren't a nice as you seem to think they are," Slaughterhouses aren't as nice as you seem to think they are if you think the two are analogous. "I also want to say if needing to kill the animal the eat is immoral than every wild animal is also immoral because they also want to kill other animals just to eat, which would imply that it's acceptable in the animals mind." You aren't a wild animal. You are a human, you have the ability to think and rationalize things, as well as have the greater capability for understanding and compassion. A lion would die if it just ate vegetation, you would not. I hold animals at a lower standard than I do humans, because they have no other options, you do. "On a whole other note Lamby have you see any of the news reports about some Swedish scientist who actually suggested we start eating human flesh to held fight climate change, check the links." If I'm against eating animals, why would I be for eating human xD? I'm not against eating someone if they were going to die anyways and they wanted themselves to be eaten, that's fine, but otherwise that's immoral as well. We should respect the wishes of the dead.

I can see how a sapient being comes to that conclusion. that being said, morals are a concept unique to living things. inanimate matter has no concept of self nor morality, yet it moves through time and exists in our space. [morality is] objectively dissimilar to time and gravity in that capacity at a minimum. i think acknowledging our limited perception/perspective/scope/senses is the right first step for any ethicist, and i appreciate that that is something you and I have done. i disagree that it's inconsequential to morality, however. don't have any real justification for that at present, i'll have to introspect a bit and get back to ya. and i think that you make very good sense. i really do think of myself as a less-than-functional outsider but I also think my perspective is healthily skeptical. and if morality is as valid as you say it is you're gonna have to be able to brush ppl like me under the rug =p and to be clear i DO want to be swept under the rug. it's annoying feeling like this all the time haha

i look at morality from a utilitarian perspective morality is useful for us as a society to function properly. if no one had empathy we would collapse as a species. Not all animals show signs of empathy, only social mammals like humans, mice, and marine mammels, but even then they mostly just show it to their pack. animals lack complex morality because they have to. this capability for vast empathy is a privilege that we have been allowed to experience because we didn't have to focus on gathering resources and could instead focus on societal bonds. same reason why we have so many facial muscles. so i see no use in speculating on the physical properties of morality, because it inarguable serves a very important purpose. its the glue that binds us together as a species.

hmmmm. this doesn't convince me that morality exists in the way that you wish it to, but it does make me question whether the appropriateness of metaethical discussions if one really considers themselves to be a morally-guided being. very profound insight I was not expecting to feel. i am humbled by your wise words, truly. separately, i acknowledge your fierce resolve in promoting veganism. my inner-philosopher may be frustrated with that calculated and precise resolve, but my human self is impressed at the folded steel that is your willpower to propose veganism as the normatively ethical way to be. I say this because ya know, you always add on something about it, even in these bizarrely abstract discussions =p but honestly, you right. like if we really all want science and tech and the human spirit to manifest fully and in the best/easiest way possible we may need to just sacrifice the ultimate ethical knowledge of the universe in favor of every other kind of knowledge to develop. fucks sake

oh i thought we were debating the practicality of metaethics in general xD if wer talking just metaethics i think it exists because we ourselves feel the effects. what is empathy if not ingrained morality. morality as a concept just makes sense as it is beneficial to our species. to us morality exists, but i would agree to a sociopath? morality does not infact exist to him, because he can not experience it. just as time ages us and gravity keeps us grounded, morality also shows itself as empathy and sympathy. and i really dislike when people say this xD I'm only ever talking veganism in related thread. every other thread I'm just a dime a dozen weeb xD people didn't even know i was vegetarian until i started doing these debates

lol. duh. if i were more perceptive i would have caught that sooner but i really just had to assume you were all in with your premises to really argue on my end. i'm not really used to formally debating stuff at all. just love speaking my weird stance on things with ppl who will listen. yeah i mean clearly empathy is instinctual evidence enough as proof of morality. for non sociopathic ppl it evidently is something that is there. just feels weird assuming that the human perspective is the TRUE perspective. i think that's where i always get caught up. and yeah I definitely have an experience bias when I say that. most of my interactions with ya are here so you can't blame me TOO much =p really it's not ill-received. in fact it is well appreciated. even if it is just here that is ferocity in your resolve, nothing less. if that's truly an unfair observation I apologize. i'm really big in -actions and words being manifestations of will!- like if ya mention it a bunch it clearly means a lot, or else ya wouldn't mention it, ya know?

no i agree, in reality human perception is stuck in a small box we can never look out of. we're extremely limited in our understanding of things we have never experienced. but i also believe that while we are stuck in those boxes, the contents of the box matters none the less i think there for i am, your box is your reality, so to you it is the one true perception and for me that's what matters. it is true our perception is just that, ours, but i don't think that devalues it at all. what do us as humans care about things outside our scope? outside our box? empathy and sympathy, like other emotions, lives and dies with sentient creatures. when we die and there is no other sentient beings to create these things they will cease to exist until then, they are real

well said! yeah that really is the working pragmatic vibe for the modern thinking-person isn't it? that feels like a very apt way to describe the phenomenon of morality. not that it matters but it has my endorsement and support =p

For someone who thinks they're a dummy. Your points on meta ethics are completely valid. Now imagine if you actually thought about it more? You have sound arguments. The questions you asked are deeper then the normative ethical questions. @frozenxheavens