Login Help | Join for Free! | Hide This

Community » Forum » Anything Goes

Search

Veganism and Morality

41 - 50 of 56 posts 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Francis VIC • Posts: 286

41 19 Sep 2009

Again with the dissascoiating emotions stuff... how is that helpful?
Analysis of emotions yeah, but dissasociation?

Uh uh.

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

43 20 Sep 2009

Aimee said:

Scott said:

Francis said:

Scott said:

The whole point was to show that someone can be both moral and not vegan. It was shitting me pretty hard when people kept saying "i take the moral/ethical" choice. When they should say they are taking their OWN moral/ethical choice, not necessarily the correct or even most popular moral. Effectively, they were using the words morals/ethics in an objective fashion which doesnt make sense.

It makes a lot of sense.

For a start, the 'objectivly enforced moral' (the morality most people claim is thiers) in our society at least is that it is wrong to hurt/kill/torture another.... therefore according to THEIR morality it is wrong to not be vegan.

The other point is Scott, and I really wonder what your answer to this willl be... Is that say I genuinely believed it ok for me to molest and rape and torture an 8 girl called Molly.... are you saying we should accept that as 'ethical' simply because we ought to have respect for 'others' ethics'?

In response to the rape scenario, yes we should respect your moralistic opinion. However, this does not stop us taking LEGAL action to stop the person from permitting such acts. That is, while we have no moral claims to make on this person we can make legal claims, i.e. gaol time or theorapy to remove said problems.

Your first point is mute, if you agree with me that the person's moral is subjective then it MUST follow that using subjectivity in an objective fashion makes no sense. For instance if i was to demonstrate why one product is better than another and i just said "well i like it", it doest mean anything. It has no bearing on the respondant to my demonstration.

And you must realise that eating plants is also killing.

Also, even if someone has this general moral your talking about that its "wrong to kill/tortue/hurt" other living beings, it doesnt follow that killing something to eat it is wrong. For instance, if this was the case that morals could never be broken, what would this person do in life/death situation? Obviously this moral has to be broken in order to survive, and noone can claim this person acted morally wrong. Im not claiming that this suggests people can be opposed to creul treatment and still eat animals, im merely suggesting it is no where near as black and white as you claim and that your argument is indeed invalid.

So, we have to respect the rapists moral stance because we can take other routes to dish out punishment..? But animals don't HAVE legal protection, so all we can do is advocate veganism. The people who participate in the morally schizophrenic act of eating them or eating other products which harm them equally, we cannot RESPECT their decision or throw them in jail (haha), so we can only try to make them aware of their dilemma (or what should be a dilemma) through activism. The animals CANNOT speak for themselves. cow

Moral people are against cruelty to animals and also cruelty to humans, as indisputable as I would say that is, I would have to rest it on the level of "my opinion".
You can try and find fallacies and keep throwing them back, but at the end of the day, this isn't about language, this is about common sense.

And once again, vegans are not pro-lifers (well, atleast not all). It's not about the fact that we're taking a "life". It's the meaning of the life. And no you cannot argue me on this one because you don't know what I mean when I say "meaning". Ugh...please don't get me started on plants......
broccoli

Well, all i can say is you reason the same way as biggots do.

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

44 20 Sep 2009

Biophiliac said:

"And you must realise that eating plants is also killing"

Why do you keep saying this Scott? There are a multitude of posts explaining that even if you are concerned with the welfare of plants, a vegan diet is the best option.

And please, if not just for my sake, can you please succinctly reiterate your argument?

I feel as if you are missing what the concept of morality is, and holding it away from the human emotions that so rightly need to be a part of their consideration. In the case of 8 year old Molly's rape, why do you think that there are laws to protect her in the first place? Those laws are in place because of the perceived immorality of the her rape. Our laws are based around morality. It is our basic RIGHT to be treated in what our society perceives as 'moral'.

Unfortunately our laws have nothing to do with morality my friend. As much has we WISH they did, they do not. You sound similar to Dworkin in his idea of rights but that is the idea of what the lagal system should be, not what it actually is. The judges and jury may bring their morals into the court room but the laws themselves do not.

In the case of molly, by living in a democratic society we acknowledge a state that has authority over us. This state, regardless of how it got this power, maintains its power by keeping the people at bay, it bows to our whims when it is in its own best interests. The state can impose punishments to the peadophile because we give it the right to do so. This is not a question of morality but a question of power. As much as we think that the peadophiles way of life is wrong, we cant do anything about it except take precautions. If everyone was to take action everytime they disliked something society would cease to function.

And yes, for like the 10th time, i agree that taking the life of a plant is the preferred option over that of an animal. That person siaid "were opposed to killing/ ...." and im just informing this person that eating plants means you have to kill plants too. Not stating that we shouldnt eat plants for this reason just stating this person should be aware of this and not make such juvenile comments.

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

45 20 Sep 2009

Mel said:

It's hard to disassociate ourselves from our emotions when we are human.
And when it comes to discussions about morality and ethics I really don't want to disassociate my feelings, I think that they count, I think that they indicate some wrongs with things or with me and should be taken note of.
But that is my opinion.
I just can't imagine a world revolving its ideas and results around reasoning that doesn't take emotion or emotional consequence into account.

Emotions cloud your judgment does not mean "dont ever use emotion in judgement", it means your emotions are getting out of hand. Emotion is a good thing but i think we can all agree that if we do 0% rational thinking and 100% emotional thinking nothing will be accomplished but the simple negation of what the other person said.

I said this because it appeared to me that the person was so caught up in their own beleifs he gave my option no merit watsoever and took no time to really understand it. Its like when your really pissed off at someone and rather then sort things rationally you just try to do something to get that person back, and in the process do something you wish you hadnt. Your emotions clouded your judgement in such a case.

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

46 20 Sep 2009

Etranger said:

I don't see that emotion clouds judgement in this case, rather it provides clarity. Causing needless suffering is wrong. Try to rationally say otherwise. A moral non-vegan is the same as a moral rapist or moral murderer. You can squirm and rationalise all you want, we see what you and we disagree.

See above

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

47 20 Sep 2009

Etranger said:

See above

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

48 20 Sep 2009

Francis said:

Again with the dissascoiating emotions stuff... how is that helpful?
Analysis of emotions yeah, but dissasociation?

Uh uh.

This is a forum for the discussion of relevant issues to this cause, to do so we discuss fairly and appropriately. "Uh uh" may be appropriate on the miley cyrus fan club forums but i would like to think that this forum is of a much higher standard then that.
You should also see above

Francis VIC • Posts: 286

49 20 Sep 2009

I'm sorry Scott...

But there's too much to respond to and right now I haven't the time.
I believe that if you take a look at each of your arguemtns and think about them for a while opposing ones will pop up.

I'd also like to say that the pepole on here, or at least I know Aimee does, consider animal use as unethical as Mollys rape.

If you were arguing those things about Mollys rape instead of animal abuse, well... I doubt we'd even have the thread.

One of the main reasons people feel so comfortable about putting animal issues down to 'subjectivity' or 'choice' is because of rampant speciesist ideology...which we all want to change.

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

50 20 Sep 2009

Francis said:

If you havent the time to read the thread or make an appropriate response, one would question why you feel the need to post at all.

Sorry to sound like such a dick but you clearly, as youve said, not taken the time to read this thread properly and preport things which were resolved a while ago. This is most unfair on the rest of us

< Prev

Next >

[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ]