Reasons I can see, outside of "objective morality" that morality even exists. +Without it society wouldn't work. -You can't trust a person that would kill you -You can't trust a society that will off you if you ever end up disabled -You can't trust a society that will be fine if you are killed for another's gain -A society works best when people respect and do not actively get in each other's way -A society works best when all it's members are in a healthy mental, emotional, and physical state.
Animals are not part of society. I don't care how smart they are, until they are smart enough to respect property rights or get a job, I will feel zero remorse for eating them. Animals that are peoples pets are a part of society. I do care about my pets, and it will hurt me if you hurt my pets. If you eat an animal that is commonly a pet, you will run a high risk of eating someone's pet. Secondly, sometimes people just don't like doing things because culture. Many countries eat dogs, cats, horses, and some treat cows as pets. Abuse of an animal causes a) that animal to remain alive and fearful of humans, it may very well go on to kill someone. I'm sure there are stories of dogs getting out and killing after mistreatment. B) abuse of an animal reflects on your personality. I do not want to share a house, a street, or a mcdonalds with someone who will hurt to make themselves feel better. ___ So there it is. "Why is abuse of animals bad when we eat them!", "Why is it moral to kill pigs that are smarter than dogs", "what about disabled people, why not eat them". All of those questions are misleading and based on a kinder-gardeners understanding of morals. "hurting things is bad" "you should share" "no tattling". And if we find aliens that are delicious, or aliens find us delicious... Well, we better hope we/they have comparable societies. Otherwise we/they just found a new source of food and/or war. (also any intelligent species would wage war, making eating their meat not worth it at all.)
I think your definition of morality is a higher abstraction of Ethical Egoism, or Randianism. Most Ethical theories are value-based. That humans have inherent value, aside from their value to society. Without a value-based system, serious problems arise. Can you provide a defense of why your value-less system does not imply those things, rather than an ad hominem attack? Those statements are anecdotal and cherry-picked to support a preconceived belief. So, you object to BSDM neighbors? But I'm mostly interested in your defense of why your ethical position doesn't support eating disabled people."Why is abuse of animals bad when we eat them!", "Why is it moral to kill pigs that are smarter than dogs", "what about disabled people, why not eat them". All of those questions are misleading and based on a kinder-gardeners understanding of morals.
Abuse of an animal causes
I do not want to share a house, a street, or a mcdonalds with someone who will hurt to make themselves feel better.
I see none. It does have all those things. It doesn't simply state them as true because they are true. Things need reason and context, unless they are universal truths. Can you state a positive thing that comes from animal abuse? BDSM is not "hurting someone". I love it when I get to quote myself How do you think killing the disabled effects their mothers, their families? How and who are you to say if a disabled person is actually useless or not?Without a value-based system, serious problems arise.
Can you provide a defense of why your value-less system does not imply those things, rather than an ad hominem attack?
Those statements are anecdotal and cherry-picked to support a preconceived belief.
So, you object to BSDM neighbors?
But I'm mostly interested in your defense of why your ethical position doesn't support eating disabled people.
-You can't trust a society that will off you if you ever end up disabled
-A society works best when all it's members are in a healthy mental, emotional, and physical state.
Can you clarify on how BDSM is not "hurting someone"? I'll definitely give that it's not non-consensually hurting someone. I'll also give that people who are into BDSM are into different things that fall under that umbrella, and not all of them involve physical pain. But I've also read about BDSM practices (and know people who've partaken in them) that involve getting whipped; hanging themselves from the ceiling via hooks inserted in their skin; insertion of needles, often many needles, into the hundreds, into their skin; biting so hard that bruises arise (and I'm sure some people experience broken skin), etc, etc, etc. It is undeniable that these practices cause pain. I'm thinking that your answer may lie in the fact that BDSM is consensual - which is basically the only reason that the treatment of a person in such a manner is okay - but to be honest, I have often struggled with this being the only thing that makes BDSM okay, because after all a cutter for instance is cutting him or herself with consent, but we do not allow that in society regardless.
A couple that does BDSM are not going to be negatively effected in their lives. Heck, they may be positively effected from their kinky sexy times. Pain is a feeling, being hurt is more than pain. A cutter risks killing themselves. It also not really looked well upon based on the whole fact that "cutting" is a very bad way of dealing with negative emotions. Cutting is a sign that something is fucked up and needs fixed. There is a reason it's teens with little emotional control that do "cut".Can you clarify on how BDSM is not "hurting someone"?
It is undeniable that these practices cause pain
because after all a cutter for instance is cutting him or herself with consent, but we do not allow that in society regardless.
Neither of these are accurate statements though. It's common for instance in adult sufferers of bipolar disease. In addition, cutting isn't done with suicide in mind and it doesn't even have to occur on the wrists - thighs, stomach, etc - and with no potential to kill.A cutter risks killing themselves....There is a reason it's teens with little emotional control that do "cut".
I'm sorry? How does that contradict " little emotional control "? It most often does, however. Secondly, there remains risk of infection or death with cutting. BDSM rarely gets to that point AFAIK(which is very little admittedly). You don't have to have suicide in mind to nick an artery, and it's really easy to do when cutting yourself regularly with a knife.Neither of these are accurate statements though.
It's common for instance in adult sufferers of bipolar disease.
In addition, cutting isn't done with suicide in mind and it doesn't even have to occur on the wrists
It negates "teens." I don't think you know enough about BDSM in order to be accurate in your statements. I'm familiar enough with it to know that plenty of it involves breaking the skin, risking as much infection / if not more (another partner = foreign bodily fluids, spit semen whatever, that are full of foreign bacteria).
It's still minor in comparison to cutting.I'm familiar enough with it to know that plenty of it involves breaking the skin, risking as much infection / if not more (another partner = foreign bodily fluids, spit semen whatever, that are full of foreign bacteria).
How? In cutting you are directly cutting yourself, multiple times with a knife blade. You can very easily hit an artery while doing so. A whip, however, is not likely to do so, and will probably leave no more than surface scratches. Secondly, cutting still hints at underlying issues that need to be solved. BDSM does not.
The lack of a positive doesn't make something morally wrong. The "trust" thing is a rather weak argument. I think society would continue to function if disabled people were "euthanized." Societies in the past have. Besides, what if it's a genetic disability that I'll never get? Then I don't have to worry. Um, that sounds like a Utilitarian argument that we should kill permanently disabled people to me. How do you think eating animals makes vegans feel? Sorry, my arguments are somewhat aggressive. I should clarify: I'm not attacking you. I'm certainly not defending animal abuse or forced euthanasia. I'm not even defending vegetarianism. I think there are plenty of good arguments against it…I just don't buy your ethical system.Can you state a positive thing that comes from animal abuse?
-You can't trust a society that will off you if you ever end up disabled
A society works best when all it's members are in a healthy mental, emotional, and physical state.
How do you think killing the disabled effects their mothers, their families?
The lack of a positive along with the existence of negatives does, however. It would also continue to function if we killed and ate half of the babies that were born. I'd rather have a better society than a functional one. Saying "lets kill everyone with a disability because they aren't productive" does not only specify genetic disabilities. Saying "lets try to cut out genetic disabilities" cannot be done without also cutting down diversity and hurting humanity more than you help it. Unless the vegan knows the animals in question personally, I honestly don't care. The question of "I think this is immoral" is different than the question of "you killed my pet". It is not traumatizing for vegans to know that other people eat meat. It is traumatizing to have your kid killed for the better good.The lack of a positive doesn't make something morally wrong.
The "trust" thing is a rather weak argument. I think society would continue to function if disabled people were "euthanized."
Besides, what if it's a genetic disability that I'll never get?
How do you think eating animals makes vegans feel?