Music Banter - It's impossible to morally justify eating meat...

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)

- - It's impossible to morally justify eating meat... (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/94981-its-impossible-morally-justify-eating-meat.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 2138530)

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

I say we resurrect the bestiality debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie Monday (Post 2138543)

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

Nah, permitting meat eating under one's moral system is self-justifying.

I eat meat. I'm trying to ween myself off of it. But I do think 100 years from now the woke kids will think we were barbarians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3 (Post 2138562)

I eat meat. I'm trying to ween myself off of it. But I do think 100 years from now the woke kids will think we were barbarians.

Or they’ll think we lived like kings or they might think it’s just a myth that people ever lived like this at all. Predictions are tough because they’re always about the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2138563)

Or they’ll think we lived like kings or they might think it’s just a myth that people ever lived like this at all. Predictions are tough because they’re always about the future.

That depends on how much information goes into the guess. Given the climate issues facing the country, it's almost certainly going to be a major black-eye on the moral position of today's society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 2138563)

Or they’ll think we lived like kings or they might think it’s just a myth that people ever lived like this at all. Predictions are tough because they’re always about the future.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/1d44...itemid=5332159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 2138534)

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:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb (Post 2138570)

Technically even human rights are not part of any demonstrably objective morality

Is that all the thanks I get, jwb ? ;)

I thought I was doing you a favour by suggesting a moral code that was "generally accepted by most people", but even Frownland, asking for One True Morality didn't say it should be demonstrably objective.

I don't think morality can be demonstrably objective, any more than concepts like "nice" or "pleasing" can be. Expecting a demonstrably objective morality may well be a futile as expecting to find an electron that's visible to the naked eye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 2138803)

Sorry if I seem ungrateful but I'm not looking for favors. If you agree with me then cool. If you disagree with me then cool. Honestly, the way this thread is going, I certainly wouldn't mind some actually engaging and challenging disagreements.

But yeah... I interpret one true morality and objective morality as the same thing and I think that was exactly the implication Frownland was making. If it can't be substantiated objectively then what exactly makes it the " one true morality?"