It's impossible to morally justify eating meat...

**Frownland** · 10-06-2020, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

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...?

~~jwb~~ · 10-06-2020, 07:49 PM

That doesn't imply any sort of objective morality. It implies there are multiple possibly workable moralities that conform roughly to the general popular consensus of what is right. There are also a infinite number of possible moral systems that don't do so.

For example you can easily construct a moral system where child rape is perfectly acceptable but not without deviating strongly from the norms we abide by to the point that invoking "morality" in such a case is virtually useless.

If I issued the same challenge to provide a coherent case that child rape is wrong, it would be easy to do so from multiple angles. You could easily make utilitarian or consequentialist arguments or deontological arguments along those lines.

I only add this constraint that the moral system you will have to construct to justify meat eating will necessarily be less compelling to most of us and more at odds with the values we generally hold because without this constraint it's pointless to talk about morality at all and you can literally justify any and everything.

**Frownland** · 10-06-2020, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

the general popular consensus of what is right

And what would that be?

~~jwb~~ · 10-06-2020, 09:12 PM

I mean it's not any one thing it's just that you can make general statements about which moral systems or rules will be more or less compelling to most people based on general trends

I believe morality is ultimately subjective and relative so you can justify eating meat just like you can justify child rape or anything else, theoretically, depending on the moral system. The challenge is how compelling of a case can you make for said moral system to the rest of us. That's a subjective question by its very nature.

Since you seem hung up on this though I can modify the question to can you justify eating meat based on the actual moral system you believe in / abide by rather than some hypothetical system you construct to justify it post hoc.

**Frownland** · 10-06-2020, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

can you justify eating meat based on the actual moral system you believe in / abide by

yes

The Batlord · 10-07-2020, 04:01 AM

Give us an example, Frown.

**Frownland** · 10-07-2020, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Give us an example, Frown.

no

Lisnaholic · 10-07-2020, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

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:

Plankton · 10-07-2020, 09:53 AM

I've already accepted the fact that I'm a horrible person.

*takes a bite of steak*

*spits out the gristle*

Bring me another cow.

Mindy · 10-07-2020, 09:56 AM

Having buffalo chicken burgers tonight

10-07-2020, 09:53 AM	#19 (permalink)
Plankton Just Keep Swimming... Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: See signature... Posts: 7,765	I've already accepted the fact that I'm a horrible person. takes a bite of steak spits out the gristle Bring me another cow. __________________ See location...

10-07-2020, 09:56 AM	#20 (permalink)
Mindy ask me about cosmology Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 9,023	Having buffalo chicken burgers tonight __________________ https://www.instagram.com/shhons_meme_agency

10-06-2020, 07:49 PM	#12 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	That doesn't imply any sort of objective morality. It implies there are multiple possibly workable moralities that conform roughly to the general popular consensus of what is right. There are also a infinite number of possible moral systems that don't do so. For example you can easily construct a moral system where child rape is perfectly acceptable but not without deviating strongly from the norms we abide by to the point that invoking "morality" in such a case is virtually useless. If I issued the same challenge to provide a coherent case that child rape is wrong, it would be easy to do so from multiple angles. You could easily make utilitarian or consequentialist arguments or deontological arguments along those lines. I only add this constraint that the moral system you will have to construct to justify meat eating will necessarily be less compelling to most of us and more at odds with the values we generally hold because without this constraint it's pointless to talk about morality at all and you can literally justify any and everything.

10-06-2020, 09:12 PM	#14 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	I mean it's not any one thing it's just that you can make general statements about which moral systems or rules will be more or less compelling to most people based on general trends I believe morality is ultimately subjective and relative so you can justify eating meat just like you can justify child rape or anything else, theoretically, depending on the moral system. The challenge is how compelling of a case can you make for said moral system to the rest of us. That's a subjective question by its very nature. Since you seem hung up on this though I can modify the question to can you justify eating meat based on the actual moral system you believe in / abide by rather than some hypothetical system you construct to justify it post hoc.