Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
If I might interject my own answer to that question, I think I would turn to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the One True Morality being, "Don't infringe on another person's human rights." The UDHR was signed by the UN in 1948:
I think a vote like that meets the bar of jwb's "...generally accepted.... popular consensus.." even if some countries/communities haven't followed it since. I suppose that like any moral system, it's there as an ideal and is not necessarily invalidated even when broken.
Unfortunately for this thread, the UDHR doesn't specifically mention eating meat or raping babies; those items must fall into some morally grey area that the UN were reluctant to tackle.
Spoiler for Principle rights under the UDHR:
The Declaration consists of the following:
The preamble sets out the historical and social causes that led to the necessity of drafting the Declaration.
Articles 1–2 established the basic concepts of dignity, liberty, and equality.
Articles 3–5 established other individual rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery and torture.
Articles 6–11 refer to the fundamental legality of human rights with specific remedies cited for their defence when violated.
Articles 12–17 established the rights of the individual towards the community, including freedom of movement.
Articles 18–21 sanctioned the so-called "constitutional liberties" and spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, religion and conscience, word, and peaceful association of the individual.
Articles 22–27 sanctioned an individual's economic, social and cultural rights, including healthcare. It upholds an expansive right to a standard of living, provides for additional accommodations in case of physical debilitation or disability, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.[12]
Articles 28–30 established the general means of exercising these rights, the areas in which the rights of the individual cannot be applied, the duty of the individual to society, and the prohibition of the use of rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations Organisation.[13]
|
Technically even human rights are not part of any demonstrably objective morality
Justifying genocide is just as easy as justifying meat consumption when your only argument is to point to moral relativity. That's why Frownlands responses so far are just as uncompelling as I predicted any attempts to defend meat eating would be in my original post. I don't know for a fact there are no compelling arguments but I can't think of any so that is my guess and that's why it's an open question.
I would make an exception for people who literally need to hunt to survive FTR. I'm talking more about meat consumption as a common commodity by people who can afford to do otherwise.