this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
543 points (79.4% liked)
Memes
45655 readers
2259 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nothing is inherently wrong with cannibalism.
I’m not a moral realist. So I don’t believe in moral facts I.e. that murder is ‘wrong’ or being charitable is ‘right’
It’s kid stuff (IMO) to believe in mystical rights and wrongs of the universe. The universe does not care one iota that you cease to exist tomorrow or if all humans were to become extinct (IMO).
If you disagree please point me to the source of your morals, how do you know what’s right and what’s wrong?
Who here is claiming that there are moral facts? Of course morals are constructs of human culture, but that doesn't make them less important. Morals are essentially what we have learned to be important rules for good, healthy societies. Humans who abide by the idea that it is "wrong" to kill another human are far more compatible in a community than ones who do not. These concepts have developed over a very long time, which is why we tend to "know" when things are wrong (eg feel bad, guilty conscious, etc). One of these "rules" is that needlessly inflicting pain on intelligent animals is wrong. Similarly, causing unnecessary damage to the environment is wrong. The context of climate change is quite new, but the principle is the same.
Vegans. Vegans are claiming there are moral facts when they say that I am wrong for consuming animal products.
Although I’ve had discussions with vegans who claim they aren’t moral realists, I can’t recall a satisfactory argument for a moral anti-realist vegan position.
If you’d like to offer one, please do.
I believe I just did? My argument is that despite morals not coming from some magical entity, they have an origin in humanities success in society, and are therefore still important. For something to be immoral doesn't merely mean an entity says it is bad, it means that thing goes against principles which benefit our societies. Murder is immoral, not because an entity decided that, but rather because societies which accepted murder were far less successful than societies which did not.
For veganism, the environmental mortality is clear. Besides that I suspect the reason we tend to see unnecessary animal abuse as immortal is because kinder humans tend to be better for society, and kinder humans also tend to be kinder to animals, not just humans.
Yeah what you’re describing is basically humans make morals.
The problem you should have with this is that currently society is fine with eating animal products.
Many societies were successful because they ate meat.
How do you reconcile a situation where you believe humans are the source of morals but you disagree with a particular moral created by humans I.e. that it’s ok to eat meat?
Well first, I don't think that "is ok to eat meat" is a moral. But it's true that humans haven't tended to find it immoral (though there are exceptions to this in certain cultures, regarding certain meats).
But you make a good point, and I think the answer is that since humans make morals based on their circumstances, and the circumstances of society can and does change, then certain morals become less relevant compared to others. Murder is a fairly constant moral, because regardless of how a society changes, a murderous individual is gonna be bad for it. But on the other hand, there used to be pretty strong morals regarding how dead bodies were treated; you leave them alone. And this used to make sense, since people who messed with dead bodies were likely to get diseases and spread them. But as medicine and science and hygiene improved, this became less relevant as compared to the need to investigate dead bodies to improve understanding of disease and human biology. So our common morals regarding respect for the dead changed.
For veganism, it used to be for most societies that they couldn't afford to simply not eat things, unless they were poisonous. So this need overwhelmed morals of kindness to nature and animals, even though this moral of kindness was still there (respecting nature is a moral found in very many cultures). But in modern day when we now have an abundance of food to the point of large waste, the need to eat whatever you can is no longer as important, and the moral of kindness to animals (and the environment) can be expressed more freely.
And indeed, I think the vast majority of vegans would agree that eating meat is not inherently immoral if there is no other choice, it's only when meat is chosen over other alternatives that it becomes immoral, because it is unnecessary.
Sorry for the wall of text
that is not universal
who gets to define need
Obviously the observer decides for themselves what they think is needed. I didn't think it would be controversial to observe that people tend to dislike/have an aversion to hurting intelligent animals for no reason.
Not everyone necessarily feels this, but many people do. Enough for us as a society to largely ban/shun things like dog fights, bull fights, circus animals, animal torture videos, etc
Both "ethics" and "morals" fundamentally deal with questions of right and wrong, good and bad, and how we ought to behave. In many philosophical and everyday contexts, the terms are used interchangeably without causing confusion. Ultimately, trying to differentiate veganism as purely "ethical" rather than "moral" is likely a semantic game rather than a meaningful philosophical distinction.
You can confidently assert that there's no significant difference between ethics and morals in this context.
Veganism is not a moral system, it is an ethical system. Before we continue, do you understand the difference?