My contention is that in order to actually justify it your moral system will not be satisfactory to most people in general
Which implies a universal morality that you already seem to have a strong concept of, and that One True Morality would be...?
jwb
10-06-2020 06:49 PM
That doesn't imply any sort of objective morality. It implies there are multiple possibly workable moralities that conform roughly to the general popular consensus of what is right. There are also a infinite number of possible moral systems that don't do so.
For example you can easily construct a moral system where child rape is perfectly acceptable but not without deviating strongly from the norms we abide by to the point that invoking "morality" in such a case is virtually useless.
If I issued the same challenge to provide a coherent case that child rape is wrong, it would be easy to do so from multiple angles. You could easily make utilitarian or consequentialist arguments or deontological arguments along those lines.
I only add this constraint that the moral system you will have to construct to justify meat eating will necessarily be less compelling to most of us and more at odds with the values we generally hold because without this constraint it's pointless to talk about morality at all and you can literally justify any and everything.
Frownland
10-06-2020 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
(Post 2138497)
the general popular consensus of what is right
And what would that be?
jwb
10-06-2020 08:12 PM
I mean it's not any one thing it's just that you can make general statements about which moral systems or rules will be more or less compelling to most people based on general trends
I believe morality is ultimately subjective and relative so you can justify eating meat just like you can justify child rape or anything else, theoretically, depending on the moral system. The challenge is how compelling of a case can you make for said moral system to the rest of us. That's a subjective question by its very nature.
Since you seem hung up on this though I can modify the question to can you justify eating meat based on the actual moral system you believe in / abide by rather than some hypothetical system you construct to justify it post hoc.
Frownland
10-06-2020 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
(Post 2138505)
can you justify eating meat based on the actual moral system you believe in / abide by
yes
The Batlord
10-07-2020 03:01 AM
Give us an example, Frown.
Frownland
10-07-2020 06:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 2138526)
Give us an example, Frown.
no
Lisnaholic
10-07-2020 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
(Post 2138494)
Which implies a universal morality that you already seem to have a strong concept of, and that One True Morality would be...?
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:
Quote:
Of the 58 members of the United Nations at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.
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]
Plankton
10-07-2020 08:53 AM
I've already accepted the fact that I'm a horrible person.
