Music Banter

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)

OccultHawk 10-07-2020 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindfulness (Post 2138540)
Having buffalo chicken burgers tonight :o:

lol

Marie Monday 10-07-2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 2138530)
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

The Batlord 10-07-2020 10:18 AM

I say we resurrect the bestiality debate.

Frownland 10-07-2020 10:31 AM

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.

TheBig3 10-07-2020 02:15 PM

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.

OccultHawk 10-07-2020 02:20 PM

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.

TheBig3 10-07-2020 02:23 PM

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.

Marie Monday 10-07-2020 02:30 PM

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

jwb 10-07-2020 05:24 PM

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:
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.

Lisnaholic 10-09-2020 05:16 AM

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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:40 PM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.