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

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
It's impossible to morally justify eating meat... It's impossible to morally justify eating meat...
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-06-2020, 06:37 PM   #1 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb View Post
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...?
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.
Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2020, 07:05 AM   #2 (permalink)
...here to hear...
 
Lisnaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: He lives on Love Street
Posts: 4,444
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
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]
__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953
Lisnaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2020, 05:24 PM   #3 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic View Post
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.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2020, 05:16 AM   #4 (permalink)
...here to hear...
 
Lisnaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: He lives on Love Street
Posts: 4,444
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb View Post
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.
__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953
Lisnaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2020, 06:28 PM   #5 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic View Post
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.
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?"
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Hybrid Mode Hybrid Mode

Similar Threads


Terms & Privacy - Contact Us - Music Banter - Archive - Top

© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.