I think you assume to know too much about what other life forms are able to perceive and feel. I also think assume too much that how you feel and perceive things is the only sanctioned way that has value in the universe of living beings.


I think it is wrong to torture any living being and not to avoid hurting them when ever possible. Unfortunately pain, and death is an inevitable part of the life cycle for all forms of life, or at least I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. You don't need to torture something in order to kill it. Killing something because you need to eat isn't hurting it for no reason, you are hurting it because you must in order to eat it.


Too add something about Joe Rogan, I think the reason I like him is because he is exactly who he is and wants to be. He doesn't hide his true self like many celebs. He is happy doing what he loves, and doesn't seem to be focused on making himself "bigger", making more money or what have you. He says what he believes and doesn't care if it sounds stupid to some people. He appears to be genuine, and that is a nice quality to see.

Which we don't need to do. We don't NEED to kill animals as we have plant and milk proteins. We do it because we enjoy meat. So we are killing animals for our enjoyment rather than necessity. No one keeps this in mind or even analyze it though and billions of animals end up suffering or being tortured to some extent because our selfishness and greed.

But aren't you also using computers for your enjoyment and their production means the destruction of natural habitats, killing of gorillas, unsustainable mining practices and the use of conflict minerals, not to mention all the other consequences from the production and transport of manufactured goods ?

I think it's good to have an aim of becoming more sustainable and create less impact but we gotta be careful picking isolated behavior examples from others, because then we are also opening our own lives for scrutiny in the exact same way. So either you have to be 100% consistent or maybe also reconsider the way you are judging others from these isolated examples without even knowing the person and the full details and reasons behind their actions.

F*#~ing hell! I confront myself with this reality, that I am part and thus supporting the global war about ressources, even if I consume/buy only a few items, try to make as much as possible by myself and buy local stuff. There's blood on my fingers...

tseuq

life without steak would be aweful

My argument was against the suffering of conscious creatures, you seem to have brought natural habitats, minerals and environmental factors in to this without due relevance.

But to exchange ideas for the sake of it endlessness, we can infer with good certainty that animals suffer. However we can not infer with good certainty that the earth feels it when we mine it.

Gorrilaz on the other hand I completely agree with you, although I would be skeptical of what the impact is and the evidence behind it.

I have argued this same conversation before with my sister and I understand the essence of your argument. It goes like this: "the environment is harmed and therefor the animals in that environment are harmed as a result" and that is to do with rain forests and the monkeys and the rest alike. But where I draw the line is in how direct the manner of suffering is commenced or initiated on another being. So keeping a cow in a holding bay and slitting its throat while it bleeds to death in fear is not equivalent to chopping down trees and giving monkeys at least some chance to survive and relocate and better develop their intelligence against our actions.

In other words, the destruction of their habitat is a byproduct of our "development". Now we know that to subject another organism to suffering or death for our advancement is immoral, even despite the fact that that is the way mother nature programmed us to be (as carnivores). So therefor we can call NATURE herself absolutely immoral even though it would be sort of absurd to do so seeing as we don't know whether nature has an intention or at least don't have any evidence to assume that yet. It would be absurd in the same was as telling your computer machine it is immoral for electrocuting the cockroach or something... perhaps, for now. Anyway, Funnily enough people don't seem to readily draw this conclusion which you seem to be advocating, at least vegetarians don't although they may be rain forest activists as well. They won't kill off another species to eat its meat and better their life but will let their fellow men destroy rain forests and gorillas. That is what i think what you are trying to say.

So if you want to argue that the destruction of natural environments (and therefor other species) is immoral then you will have to argue that the destruction of other species for our food or development is immoral too because they are one and the same thing, just a different process. And as I have established in the previous paragraph that would be absurd to claim such a thing because mother nature (ourselves included in it) has not yet provided us with evidence that she has intentions and to call her or IT immoral for "creating" or allowing creatures to exist that slaughter each other or destroy another's habitat would be absurd.

That would be objectifying morality. So now then we can say that destroying another species habitat is immoral only subjectively. That means that morals don't exist anywhere in the world except in the human mind, so we can act however we choose as long as our conscience allows us to. I'd like to ask you also endlessness, do you hold the massive meteor responsible for wiping out the dinosaurs and destroying the earths habitat? I would think not BUT how would you distinguish human beings from the process of a rock destroying most of earths creatures and habitat temporarily? Would you say the meteor is immoral or unethical in it's act? Probably not. All we have here are physical processes. We know with good certainty that our minds are dictated by unconscious causal processes and are no different to a causal process like a meteor hitting earth. Nevertheless, you might say "but we have intentions, we have empathy". They are just more causal processes within the brain and bear no bearing on how the world "ought" to be. In other words, how do we know our own subjective opinion about morality is the right way universally and objectively? We can't! We can do whatever we like as far as the universe is concerned because there appears to be no evidence of objective morality and likewise no case for subjective morality being any more right than any evil possibly imaginable. Unless of course you can argue that subjective morality should control objective existence, isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Or rather putting an illusory cart (subjective morality as a so called "independent thinker" before a real horse (objective reality).

I personally favor a Darwinian perspective. The strongest will survive. What is to be considered here though is advantages like time (IE if we only had one thousand more years we could have beat the aliens, etc.) And so by killing other creatures for our survival and destructing their habitats is not immoral because we are here to dominate the rest.

I also personally paradoxically detest that perspective, am a vegetarian and wish we could all live in harmony, but I see it's value in distinguishing a faster advancement of one species (which modern humans have successfully done after millennia of slaughtering other creatures in pain and suffering).

Sounds similar to "Life without heroin would be aweful"

Keep in mind what is necessity and what is privilege. You don't NEED steak, you just want it.

Do you want it enough to go and cull another being for it?

*If yes, fine although you can't argue that that is just the way nature made you because it is not a necessity which is what that mechanism of nature is for... so in this case it just makes you greedy meat fiend.

*If not, then you shouldn't be eating it period lol. Passing the knife to another man to do the dirty work you can't bare yourself to do is even more immoral than killing another creature out of pleasure than necessity.

steak is way better than heroin.

i would happily kill a cow to eat, i think meat is necessary to live healthily, but i dont have the resourses to do so so i buy well farmed happy cows that are killed as nicely as possible. All my meat is locally sourced, grass fed and organic. my meat probably lives a better life than i do up until they are killed.

Sure...until you try and chase the dragon with a cow.

cowroin

thats the good stuff

In your opinion... Because in mine, it is completely relevant, since we are talking about the suffering caused upon other lifeforms by our actions.


The earth is made up of many different lifeforms which suffer to some extent or other.


Google search: "gorillas coltan" and see for yourself. Usage of technology is responsible for the direct and indirect suffering of many lifeforms, don't fool yourself thinking just because you don't see it, its not there.




Strawman argument there... Some examples may be clear, others not so much. Reality is not that simple. What if I throw a bucket of toxic chemicals down the drain and this kills aquatic lifeforms immediately? What if it takes 5 years for them to die? What if it takes 10 people doing the same to kill them? Where am I responsible, and where am I not?

And on the other hand, what if on the other hand I kill the cow immediately and without suffering? What if the cow would instead of dying in 10 seconds under my hands, die a long agonizing "natural" death after breaking it's legs when trying to cross the river when it was old? etc

Also, you seem to be ignoring the human factor. What about the human suffering involved in conflict mineral extractions, as well as in the production of manufactured goods (for example suicide rates in industry in China)? Or only animal suffering counts, not humans?



Speculation. If it's just natural selection, it isnt really 'mother nature programming us' right? More like, we are the way we are because we were able to survive and continue spreading our genes, and by chance some things are the way they are, some of which may have been an evolutionary advantage, some may just be neutral things that at least didnt get in the way. Plus, it would be more accurate to say omnivores than carnivores.





I never said otherwise. Notice so far I have not stated what my diet is like, or what my actions or behaviors are like... I'm merely exposing what ive seen as your contradictions which were very obvious when vehemently defending one aspect of suffering and ignoring other important sorts of suffering that would call your own ideas/actions into question instead of joe rogan's. Again, either be 100% coherent or dont be judgemental and give people the benefit of the doubt in terms of their reasoning for their actions (just like you are trying to explain your own)



Exactly the same for killing animals for food, thats just subjectively immoral, yet you seem to want to paint it as an objective judgement even if you later state there isnt an objective morality.. Plus, hunting is completely different than eating mass produced food.

Do you grow your own food, or have you ever? How did you take care of pests/wild animals eating your food if so? And if not, you do realize that this process also involves suffering of other animals right? Did you ever research where your vegetables are coming from,





Sure it was 'responsible', but not in a conscious way (I guess).

In the end the whole universe will die in a big crunch or infinite expansion, so from an outside perspective nothing matters. But this doesn't change the importance of the decisions we take here on earth imo. As mentioned before, im all for trying to be more sustainable and trying to act in ways that diminish suffering for different lifeforms. But lets not kid ourselves and think we have the moral highground if we do one thing or another in that direction, specially if we don't have the full picture and don't know about other people
s behaviors in a broad sense.

Dinosaurs did NOT go extinct nor was we wiped out!!!! There is Birds, Crocodilians, Sea-turtles and we (mammalians grew an organ that enabled we to hatch (y)our eggs inside (y)our bodays and (y)our feathers are thin, loike hairs). Some sharks lay eggs, some give birth to live young, the same can be seen in some snakes and not in others. They do lack the mammalian glands, which is a gimmick unique to us reptiloids......but we are them.


Accord. to our tradition, it's going to be so ''hairy'' ...that it will be difficult to make out it's front and end bits. It may be connected/involved with riba...(?)..at least during it's embryonic state.

Over the years i have often wondered whether a lion living in the wild would prefer to stalk and kill it's prey or have the meat served up to it without having to make the effort. I like meat and i am quite happy for someone else to do the butchering for me as i don't like all the blood, guts and gore. YuK!!! This is not to say that if i had no choice i could easily bring myself to kill and butcher my own meat. I don't think that it is any different to someone who has, for whatever reason, no interest in repairing a car and pays another who is more willing and able to do the repairs.

This
I believe this is true, at least for some people.

Plant sources are not the same as animal sources, and there are things our bodies need that we can not get from plant sources.

I understand the want to alleviate the suffering of animals. I think we need to take a very deep look at our food production methods change the way we do things. I do not enjoy hurting or killing animals. Ask the people that know me, I literally wouldn't hurt a fly. I capture them and release them out of my house with as little disturbance to them as possible. If its winter I let them hang out. I source my food from the most ethical options available to me. But I've come to terms with the fact that life in this universe involves the process of continually recycling energy and matter. I eat living things to stay alive, and other living things will eventually eat me, and so on. I don't think I am the one to make the judgment of which life is conscious enough to make eating it wrong. I trust in nature, its done me good this far. I will listen to my body and try to eat what I think it is telling me I need too.

Really? Necessary eh? I guess that is why there are so many healthy vegetarians out there, myself included

Ok, fair point and I understand everything you said. But what are we to do? Does it make a difference to live a more moral life if we aren't even sure of the validity of morals in the first place? This question comes as per your quote "But lets not kid ourselves and think we have the moral highground if we do one thing or another in that direction, specially if we don't have the full picture"

Should we stop killing animals and stop impacting the environment and live a humane non-invasive existence?

This reminds me of the argument against killing sharks as they are a "vital part" of the food chain. This is just an opinion in order to keep evolution to exist unchanged and evolve in a straight line as if humans never existed. Do you think anyone cared when species went extinct in the age of the dinosaurs? Or the Dodo bird? No! Species die, so what? Likewise, why can't we just rape and pillage the earth for what we want and need? The species that die off didn't develop intelligence fast enough, too bad for them, they lost. Once again, I don't agree with this perspective but there is some merit in it.

I mean, "why does subjective morality really even matter? So other beings suffer, so what?" *akin to what hitler and other narcissist think*

At the end of the day the human ethical system comes down to our desire to have good over bad and to empathize with other creatures who want the same thing. But what makes our self-created system of morals valid when there is no objective morality to back it up? How do we know subjective morality isn't just some deviant growth in our minds? You might say that the feeling of not wanting pain is proof of the validity of subjective morality alone. I would say that would be true. So then it means we should therefor cease all suffering on all organisms everywhere... Well endlessness, try and convince 3rdI to do that, I dare you lol... they are too selfish, have too little regard for the suffering of others.

Yet the picture I have painted of the meat eater being actively against subjective morality is not one that anyone would agree with,especially not the meat eaters themselves. They seem to be complacent with the suffering they cause. This is the epitome of what I said earlier in the quote "why does subjective morality really even matter? So other beings suffer, so what?" and then they promptly chew of a bit of fat of their steak and stuff their grotty little mouths. It doesn't take a genius to see the hypocrisy here. They advocate the relinquishment of environmental impacts and suffering on animals yet they drive their cars and chew their steaks as if it didn't exist.

Unfortunately that is not a good analogy. Mechanics requires knowledge and many years of training, that is why someone pays someone. All other forms of payment for chores is to some extent immoral as it is the definition of inequality. It is a product of capitalistic societies where they subject the lower class to chores like toilet cleaning. Unfortunately there doesn't seem any way to rectify this inequality yet as we do need toilet cleaners and at the same time if you believe in virtues you should believe we all deserve equal rights. No one man deserves a sports car and another a bloated belly.

The lion lives for the kill remember. The fact is, you still don't need to eat meat. You did it because you enjoy it, there is no necessity. You can't prove there is either because vegetarians like myself live incredibly health lives with supplementation. You prefer the taste of blood, me vanilla protein shakes one thing is different, I have some illusory moral higher ground over you that can't be proved objectively. You as a meat eater subject animals to suffering as the result of your greed for the taste of meat, I do not.

Endlessness however points out that I do by using my computer and driving my car etc. and I have replied by questioning the value of this illusory or at unverifiable metaphysical system of subjective morality... why? because I want to question my own assumptions too... something that meat-eaters don't really do and just scoff their face without a second thought.

That isn't true. Every constituent of nutrition in meat can be sourced in alternative means. protein, vitamins including b12 for red blood cell growth, etc.

Either way it won't be long until artificial meat is sold in stores as it is already proven to grow in petri dishes. What will be even more scary is that people will STILL choose real meat even though it is the same thing lol. This is equivalent to halal meat, aka the irrational tendencies of arabs to kill their cows alive for no reason other than an improvable will of an mentally created idea of god (no offense intezam).

Wait, wasn't/isn't the hitllers one of these nazi vegetarians...?

fathomlessness, it seems like your quite good at ignoring the suffering you inflict but bad mouth others for inflicting suffering.

anyway i watched the new Rogan special last night, thought it was good.

"BRRUUUUUUUCEE"