Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Oldenlame t1_jef9lf1 wrote

Humanized animals seems all fun and cute until you break the law and are punished back to the house of pain.

24

EasyBOven t1_jeex5ap wrote

We always root for the animal trying to escape slaughter. Then many of us go straight to the fridge and cook up a corpse. Why don't these stories explain that it's ok when the main characters are killed for someone's sandwich?

20

Otfd t1_jef7rbq wrote

I don’t really mind this I can root for chicken little and eat some KFC.

13

EasyBOven t1_jef8gna wrote

What makes it ok to treat some individuals as property for your use? Just that you don't care about those individuals?

−9

water_bender t1_jefa424 wrote

To quote The Shins, "Maybe those invisible slaves are too far away for the ghosts to haunt." They meant child labor in sweatshops, but I think the principle applies here.

9

EasyBOven t1_jefap0l wrote

Yeah, I think that's a good description of the psychology, but not a good argument about morality. When we recognize that we're participating in something unethical, don't you think we should stop?

3

Otfd t1_jefck83 wrote

Ethics are subjective, but the major one are mostly agreed upon by society.

Your ethics are to not eat animals.

My ethics are a big bucket of KFC.

1

EasyBOven t1_jefctyz wrote

I see. So if someone believes something is ok to do, that means it's actually ok?

3

Otfd t1_jefewem wrote

Ok is subjective. To you no. To me yes.

In the context of eating animals. Because you equated animals to humans. I equate them to food, even though I could have a pet pig that I love and protect dearly, I would still go inside and eat bacon without feeling anything. Similarly, I could throw some bacon into it's pin and it would eat it without issue.

2

EasyBOven t1_jefgasr wrote

Similarly, someone could kill and eat a human, or enslave them, or sexually assault them without issue. I'm not sure you'd be talking about subjective morality if someone did those things

6

Otfd t1_jefkosa wrote

That's your opinion. Those two things are extremely far from being similar in my mind, but if you think that in order to be okay with eating animals or "enslaving them" you have to be okay with that perspective toward humans.

Then I thank god you don't get to choose my perspective.

2

EasyBOven t1_jefkvk7 wrote

This is your opinion that morality is subjective. Are you now saying that some morality is subjective?

2

Otfd t1_jeg18rp wrote

Nope all morality is subjective. BUT some are so obviously that they are accepted as fact such as murder by most of society.

1

EasyBOven t1_jeg1mr4 wrote

Obviousness is inconsistent with subjectivity

1

Otfd t1_jeg20sd wrote

No. It causes something to seem less subjective, but ultimately people exist who murder and think it's fine. They would disagree, but as a whole it's obvious so it feels like fact.

1

EasyBOven t1_jeg265h wrote

So you have no argument to those individuals who would murder? It's just, like, your opinion man, that murder is bad?

1

Otfd t1_jeg2mj0 wrote

This is the issue with people like you. You want to spend hours running in circles trying to make me equate something I think is minor to something I think is major.

I WILL NEVER THINK THAT KILLING AND EATING AN ANIMAL IS THE SAME AS A KILLING A HUMAN. So fuck off and go argue YOUR morality with someone else.

I am two seconds away from doubling my meat intake just to make up for your lack of eating.

1

EasyBOven t1_jeg3cj0 wrote

I'm just asking questions about your morality.

Either of this things should be true:

  1. You have an argument against murder that you would want someone who thinks murder is ok to examine and possibly change their mind, in which case you should be equally open to arguments about treating non-human animals as property

  2. You have no argument against murder because all morality is subjective and if some dude wants to murder someone that's their right and we should all get out of their face about it because maybe they're two seconds away from doubling the number of people they murder just to make up for your lack of murdering

Which would you say is closer to your position?

1

Otfd t1_jeg5tel wrote

Then you should be equal open to treating your water bottle with the same level of respect. Don't try to argue that it isn't living, because those are my morals.

It doesn't matter dude. We pick what we want. But thankfully, society mostly aligns with what I consider the most morally outrageous such as rape, murder, etc.

1

EasyBOven t1_jeg6qz1 wrote

I'm happy to hear an argument about any moral claims.

How fortunate that in a reality where moral opinions are just random chance and not based on anything real, we find ourselves in a society that matches your morality. There can't possibly be an underlying cause for societies making similar moral decisions

1

Otfd t1_jegrz0n wrote

Your second paragraph made me laugh. “Based on anything real” dude what part of subjective do you not understand? We have free will. Thankfully, society can mostly agree that killing, raping and a bunch of other stuff is extremely bad. But a whole of us think people like you who take it this far are stupid. We can justify killing and eating an animal. We can’t justify killing a human. You can’t justify killing and eating an animal. I CAN.

1

EasyBOven t1_jegstdh wrote

This is just an assertion. We don't have to get into the weeds on meta-ethics, but if you want to assert that it's ok to treat an individual as property because "subjective, tho," you're either going to need to concede that you would have to allow people to murder and/or demonstrate subjectivism.

But if you want to circumvent all that nonsense, I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation with you about your moral perspective and see if it can be applied consistently

1

Otfd t1_jeh1oe0 wrote

Yeah me and 90% of the world will continue to do exactly that. Just like we always have.

You can keep asserting that we have to share YOUR beliefs.

1

EasyBOven t1_jeh1t6f wrote

Do exactly what? What are you even responding to at this point? Are you making up your own meaning to my sentences now?

1

KGBFriedChicken02 t1_jefokl7 wrote

Everyone's morals are subjective lmao, it's phillosophy, it's subjective by definition. Eating meat is part of nature. We may take it to an extreme, but if it was so reprehensable and evil, i'd argue it wouldn't happen in nature.

What's fucked up is our lack of respect for the food we eat. The waste, the cruelty of factory farming, that part of it.

0

EasyBOven t1_jefowvn wrote

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "waste" is fucked up, but owning another individual isn't.

I don't need to demonstrate that morality is objective in order to examine your reasoning. Why do you think it's ok for one individual to own another as property?

1

KGBFriedChicken02 t1_jefvwnr wrote

Are you actually comparing meat eating to slavery right now? Get a fucking grip

1

EasyBOven t1_jefwemm wrote

I'm just trying to accurately describe our relationship with certain individuals.

Is our relationship with some non-human animals not one of ownership?

0

Otfd t1_jefcej1 wrote

Because that's how the world works. Majority of the animal kingdom is eating other animals. I am an animal, I eat animals. Will never feel bad and will never stop.

1

EasyBOven t1_jefd0qi wrote

This is a different position than the one you presented to me in another reply. Here, you seem to be saying that anything other animals do is ok to do. Is that what you believe?

2

drintelligent t1_jefn4y1 wrote

No ones saying anything an animal does is ok. Otherwise we would be saying rape is ok cause animals do it. Morality is human, it's up to us to decide how the world is morally governed and we have decided that eating animals is right

2

EasyBOven t1_jefnbqf wrote

Ok, this is a different argument, but I'm happy to discuss your perspective. You seem to be saying that if society generally says something is ok, that means it's actually ok. Did I get that right?

1

drintelligent t1_jefngpc wrote

Correct. And vise versa. Society says rape is wrong so it is

2

EasyBOven t1_jefnntb wrote

Cool. But it used to be considered ok to own humans as property, and not ok to help those humans escape from their owners.

Are you saying that at that time, it was actually good to own humans, and actually bad to help them escape?

1

drintelligent t1_jefo194 wrote

As I said, it's up to humanity to decide. If owning people is wrong then society will change. But I don't believe eating meat is in any way comparable

1

EasyBOven t1_jefo7bp wrote

Ok, but what I'm essentially asking is

If you lived in a time when slavery was broadly considered ok, would you advocate that it stop or that it continue?

2

drintelligent t1_jefp7qb wrote

Forgive me for asking but when did you ask that?

That depends on the society I grew up in at the end of the day. If I grew up in Europe in the 1740s then yes slavery would be morally wrong, if I grew up a white family in the Caribbean in the 1810s then yes. If I grew up in the Northern USA in the 1830s then yes, I'd I were born in the South sometime after the civil war then probably. But if I was born before then then I probably would say no slavery is right.

1

EasyBOven t1_jefpouv wrote

I recognize that I'm phrasing the question differently in order to try to get to a relevant answer. I understand that these questions can be interpreted in different ways and recognize that you're trying to answer the exact question I'm asking. I appreciate the honesty.

I'm confused by this answer though. Do you, as the person you are today, think it's a good thing that slavery has been officially and largely abolished?

2

drintelligent t1_jefq2pw wrote

Uhm, yes I was born In Europe after 1740 I believe slavery is undeniably morally wrong

1

EasyBOven t1_jefq7ur wrote

Cool. Do you think that change represents moral progress?

1

drintelligent t1_jefqgb3 wrote

Not always, privatisation is objectively progress in the wrong direction I would say as an example

1

EasyBOven t1_jefqr3o wrote

I'm talking about the specific change where we now recognize that humans shouldn't be property. Even if there are other issues around that change that might have been bad, do you agree that this specific change is progress?

1

drintelligent t1_jefqyw1 wrote

Progress in the morally right way, yes, cause owning a life is incorrect

1

EasyBOven t1_jefrcnz wrote

Cool. I'm glad we agree. So why wouldn't that concept apply consistently to all beings with a subjective experience?

2

drintelligent t1_jefss05 wrote

Animals are not equal to humans. They can't provide a justice system or a welfare system on any level. They don't take care of there sick or injured, they can't cure themselves, can't heal wounds. If we didn't have them in captivity nothing would change compare that to human enslavement or the Holocaust.

1

EasyBOven t1_jeft3xj wrote

Ok, so an individual's ability changes the value in not having them be property, and if the value in them not being property is low enough for the rest of society, then it's ok for them to be property?

1

drintelligent t1_jeftwfz wrote

That's not what I'm saying, if a human can or can't doesn't determine there right to be free, it's a matter of species not individual

1

EasyBOven t1_jefu0in wrote

Why would species be morally-relevant?

1

drintelligent t1_jefwx80 wrote

Even the slightest chance of the person enslaved having the ability to cure or discover should make the whole idea of human enslavement morally wrong. But the idea a far. animal can compare in the same way seems fairly ridiculous if you ask me

1

EasyBOven t1_jefxgwj wrote

Then it does seem to be an assessment of someone's ability. There are mentally disabled humans with similar levels of intelligence to the animals we exploit for food. They would therefore have a similar chance to cure or discover something. Why shouldn't they also be treated as property?

1

marconova7 t1_jefrlt0 wrote

You rape too?

0

Otfd t1_jeg125l wrote

Weird thing to say champ.

Rape = is objective selfish.

Eating is not. Eating meat can be very beneficial.

2

CirnoIzumi t1_jefyw2h wrote

Almost like the story is about humans just dressed up as animals for the sake of flavour (pun intended)

2

EasyBOven t1_jefz5lm wrote

I'm not sure why that would matter. If we can imagine ourselves in the animal's position, and recognize we wouldn't want this done to us, what is it that makes it ok to do it to them?

1

CirnoIzumi t1_jeg0hch wrote

Because we are imagining us, doing us things, when we watch Fox and the hound we don't see a fox and a hound but class difference/Tribalism

1

EasyBOven t1_jeg1gps wrote

Yeah, you're talking psychology, but I think ethics is more important here. Why would it be ok to treat these individuals in ways we would not want to be treated?

1

Showerthoughts_Mod t1_jeevwic wrote

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

1