Excerpt from "Against Meat"

[Sidoh]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

[iago]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

Yes, it is.

But discussing the reasoning is well beyond the scope.. plus, it's been a few years since I got my philosophy degree. I assure you, at the time, I had great reasons. :)

[Towelie]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

Yes, it is.

But discussing the reasoning is well beyond the scope.. plus, it's been a few years since I got my philosophy degree. I assure you, at the time, I had great reasons. :)

How do you explain the different morals between cultures? This could be comparing our culture to another culture in any time period

[iago]

It's crazy to think that morality is relative?  I don't think you should be so sure about that.

Yes, it is.

But discussing the reasoning is well beyond the scope.. plus, it's been a few years since I got my philosophy degree. I assure you, at the time, I had great reasons. :)

How do you explain the different morals between cultures? This could be comparing our culture to another culture in any time period

Simple! [You're|They're|We're] doing it wrong. :)

I submit that there's a universal right/wrong, and that no culture necessarily follows it. Feel free to disagree :)

[Sidoh]

Many people with PhDs in philosophy support moral relativity.

Until you demonstrate morality is objective, your argument is practically useless. :)

[while1]

So much easier to get my protein from meat and dairy products... and kill two birds with one stone by also satiating my craving for meat!  It also fills me faster.  And I have an good appetite for my size.

I could eat nuts for protein, but they're a snack food for me... something I munch on in between meals.


I'm an ends justifies the means kind of guy.  So if eating meat makes me happy, then the ends justify the means!  gg

[deadly7]

I could eat nuts for protein, but they're a snack food for me... something I munch on in between meals.

Congratulations you just proved your ignorance. Nuts are nowhere near exclusively the only method by which to get essential proteins, and definitely not something a regular vegetarian or vegan would consider as a large portion of his or her meals.

[iago]

I could eat nuts for protein, but they're a snack food for me... something I munch on in between meals.

Congratulations you just proved your ignorance. Nuts are nowhere near exclusively the only method by which to get essential proteins, and definitely not something a regular vegetarian or vegan would consider as a large portion of his or her meals.

Yeah. The average human gets WAY too much protein (and it isn't good for you -- it promotes things like osteoperosis). I get plenty of vegetable protein, which is better for you.

Many people with PhDs in philosophy support moral relativity.

Until you demonstrate morality is objective, your argument is practically useless. :)

The problem is, if you take that road, there's no way to come to any kind of agreement on a moral issue, whether it's vegetarianism, abortion, murder, etc.

[Sidoh]

The problem is, if you take that road, there's no way to come to any kind of agreement on a moral issue, whether it's vegetarianism, abortion, murder, etc.

I realize this.  That doesn't demonstrate anything, however.  It's completely true, but it only highlights an inconvenient truth if morality is relative.

There are far better arguments against moral relativity.

I'm pretty much a utilitarian, but this is a gaping hole in your argument.  Until you provide a definition of morality, and give (or cite) an argument for why it's accurate, any argument you base on morality is completely meaningless to anyone thoughtful enough to see that almost all of your argument hinges on how you define morality (which isn't very thoughtful).

Even with utilitarianism, the consideration as to which 'beings' should be included in the set of things we calculate utility on is completely arbitrary.

[iago]

The problem is, if you take that road, there's no way to come to any kind of agreement on a moral issue, whether it's vegetarianism, abortion, murder, etc.

I realize this.  That doesn't demonstrate anything, however.  It's completely true, but it only highlights an inconvenient truth if morality is relative.

There are far better arguments against moral relativity.

I'm pretty much a utilitarian, but this is a gaping hole in your argument.  Until you provide a definition of morality, and give (or cite) an argument for why it's accurate, any argument you base on morality is completely meaningless to anyone thoughtful enough to see that almost all of your argument hinges on how you define morality (which isn't very thoughtful).

Even with utilitarianism, the consideration as to which 'beings' should be included in the set of things we calculate utility on is completely arbitrary.

It is arbitrary indeed, but I think it makes sense to calculate utility, at the very least, for anything that thinks, has emotions, and feels pain. Also, even if you only include them as a minor point, there are FAR more of them than us, and their losses far exceed our gains, so it makes a difference. :)

If you don't agree, then we've found the core issue where our opinions diverge.. the rest is all just noise. :)

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

[Sidoh]

It is arbitrary indeed, but I think it makes sense to calculate utility, at the very least, for anything that thinks, has emotions, and feels pain. Also, even if you only include them as a minor point, there are FAR more of them than us, and their losses far exceed our gains, so it makes a difference. :)

If you don't agree, then we've found the core issue where our opinions diverge.. the rest is all just noise. :)

I've been saying this in a less abstract form for several pages of posts. :P

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why?

[d&q]

Also, utilitarianism is fundamentally broken. Any system where you can justify genocide is bad!

Why? Because it doesn't work within your system of morality? I don't know enough about various philosophies or logic to know if they're sufficiently rigorous to be expressed arithmetically, but extending Godel's theorem(s), wouldn't that mean that its impossible to show that your system of morality is consistent? That is, you can't prove the validity of your moral system by using morals derived therein. Would that make all moral discourse moot? Am I just rambling? These are all questions, but this is a statement.

[Towelie]

iago, may I suggest you become a Fruitarian?
That way you don't kill plants, because they are alive too.

[rabbit]

But by being a Fruitarian he's essentially aborting all the new plants that could be born.  That is morally wrong for some reason.

[Towelie]

Fuck. iago, maybe you should be a seedless fruitarian?