debate

okay i did throw a shit ton at you there, let me approach you with a specific thing i find interesting about your veganism and value you place on human/animal life. i think you irrationally place humans over other humans in value (scientist over homeless person thing), as well as placing humans over nonhuman animals in value (humans are undeniably exceptional animals bit), is what it boils down to. at my very core, i see human and nonhuman animals as morally equal. ones bigger than us that consume flesh would consume us in a casual effort to survive, it is more than acceptable to do the same back. there is no guarantee that existence will be here tomorrow, if any amount of plant/animal lifeforce is ended 'prematurely' (whatever the fuck that means! a whole debate right there, honestly haha) it was a blessing it got to exist in the first place. to be so caught up in denying our instincts with our non-sentient brethren seems a bit...too future-sighted? i guess. like yeah i understand you could go on to say "well if nothing matters and nothing is guaranteed why be moral at all?" well it's b/c of my instinct! my human instinct says treat other people with the golden rule in mind and eat tasty small animals. that's about where i'm at

i dont think your claim holds any weight in practice if i held a gun up to the head of a human and to the head of a rat and told you to pick one, would you say you couldn't? why or why not?

i'm really not a sociopath, promise haha. i feel empathy very very deeply. i love justice and superheroes a fucking ridiculous amount. but there is a part of me that is such a moral skeptic that feels the need to help people see existence in that completely arbitrary/nihilistic way that i do. if that makes any sense

i would argue it is objective reality that a human in that moment is wracked with more fear then the rat would be, that it has a family that has the capability of mourning far more superior to the rat, and that the death of the human is also a detriment to our society as that person would be better served to be alive and working and paying taxes human society is harmed by that death, no matter how significantly, which is immoral if you use your train of logical the holocaust also wasn't an issue because humans dying has no real impact on objective reality, if I'm interpreting your stance correctly aye np, i have some sociopathic beliefs myself xD

my moral beliefs serve more of a utilitarian prospective, where i look for what is more useful and leads to the best outcome

yeah i think that normatively speaking you are right on the money. we probably SHOULDN'T eat animals or cause undue suffering to them or anyone else in the name of having an optimally functioning civilization. even then, it all comes back to how much stock one has in morality as a universal force. the fact that there have to be sentient creatures there to observe that force for it to exist....it's hardly a force at all. more like a concept. if we're talking about brass tax (tacks?, only ever heard that said, not written) type of shit, it objectively means fuck all if there's any amount of animal suffering going on, and it means fuck all if civilization fails and everyone dies and suffers to the maximum extent they possibly can. i think just like how embracing your mindset would lead to a better tech-thriving utopia, my mindset would lead to a more 'illuminated' one that is in touch with our universe in a *poetic* way. truly neutral!