It's impossible to morally justify eating meat...

OccultHawk · 10-06-2020, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

eating meat is fine but so is eating babies and maybe even moderately retarded adults

The Promised Neverland

The Batlord · 10-06-2020, 12:42 AM

Little Timmy got an F on his test so Mrs. Henderson gave him a Home Ec lesson.

10-06-2020, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

eating meat is fine but so is eating babies and maybe even moderately retarded adults

If you actually believe so then that's fine (I don't actually believe you do tbh)

I'd chalk this up under a moral system that doesn't come close to representing the values most of us would accept

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

the general popular consensus of what is right

And what would that be?

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

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

Give us an example, Frown.

no

**Marie Monday** · 10-07-2020, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

no

Dont back down, I'm curious to hear what you'd come up with

As for me, according to my morals eating meat is bad but I'm a big hypocrite

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-06-2020, 06:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
jwb Guest Posts: n/a	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.

10-06-2020, 08:12 PM	#6 (permalink)
jwb Guest Posts: n/a	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.