Philip Wollen : Animals Should Be Off The Menu

[truthreality]

I never made it specifically about me. I would say that if it alleviates more suffering than it causes, then yes, it is okay.

Whether or not suffering is bad or good is subjective. Whether or not suffering should or should not be alleviated is subjective. Whether or not it is ok to alleviate suffering is subjective.

Agreed. Which is why the fact that something is "primitive" and naturally occurring is a stupid criticism. Saying "lions do it to" is absurd.

The "Other" Animal world is hostile which is why I brought up lions and their lack of ethics. I doubt you would want to live with them. Do you not see this?

You seem to be the one wishing to impose your morality to restrict human behavior.

Whether or not human behavior should or should not be restricted is subjective.

No, you can't always acquire what you need without stealing.

Needs are subjective. The need to acquire is subjective.

Though this is not much of a problem in the US, in some parts of the world people DO starve to death because they can't get the food they need.

Whether or not death and starving are bad is subjective. Whether or not someone needs food is subjective. Whether or not someone should or should not or need or need not live is subjective.

Must they be "ethical" and choose to die instead of taking from someone else?

Whether or not someone should or should not do something is subjective.

Yes, I am using a different analogy to show that your position may not be consistent.

Your flip flopping only shows that your position is inconsistent.

For your position to be consistent it must be consistent in ALL cases, not just one analogy.

My position is consistent. I responded to your argument that murdering for material gain is justifiable. Instead of responding to this you brought up robbing for needs. These are two different subjects. My position is consistent when we are discussing the same topic obviously not when you bring up a completely different topic.

What then determines if a situation is justifiable?

What determines what is justifiable? What determines what a situation is? What determines if the situation should be analyzed with justifiability or not?

Why is it okay to commit one crime in dire circumstances, but not this other?

What is crime? What determines what is dire? These are both subjective.

Yes, but again, this is not the intent. It is a necessary and unintended consequence.

First. You cannot cause death without harming the body. Harm is an instrinsinct part of death. Second the legal definition of murder is more then just harm.

[LetThereBe]

Whether or not suffering is bad or good is subjective. Whether or not suffering should or should not be alleviated is subjective. Whether or not it is ok to alleviate suffering is subjective.

Yep. Ethics are subjective. Once you create a basis for your ethics though we can determine if your views are consistent.

The "Other" Animal world is hostile which is why I brought up lions and their lack of ethics. I doubt you would want to live with them. Do you not see this?

They evolved in a different way. I doubt they would want to live with us. So what?

Whether or not human behavior should or should not be restricted is subjective.

Perhaps. At least in the US we try to avoid unnecessary restriction. For example, we don't impose the ethics of various religious doctrines. We institute what is necessary for a stable society.

Needs are subjective. The need to acquire is subjective.

No, this one is not. You need food. You need water. You need air.

Whether or not death and starving are bad is subjective. Whether or not someone needs food is subjective. Whether or not someone should or should not or need or need not live is subjective.

Whether or not someone should or should not do something is subjective

Again, everything depends on your initial premises. It is the social contract. You can only impose your will on others as far as is necessary to get them to respect your rights.

Your flip flopping only shows that your position is inconsistent.

Not at all. It isn't "flip flopping" to use two different analogies. That is just testing two different boundary conditions. Your position must satisfy EVERY boundary condition, not just one.

My position is consistent. I responded to your argument that murdering for material gain is justifiable. Instead of responding to this you brought up robbing for needs. These are two different subjects. My position is consistent when we are discussing the same topic obviously not when you bring up a completely different topic.

Consistency demands that if murder is bad and robbery is fine then there is a REASON. I am trying to determine that reason. If you have no reason then your position is inconsistent. That is why I test with multiple different analogies.

What determines what is justifiable? What determines what a situation is? What determines if the situation should be analyzed with justifiability or not?

Your initial premises and logic.

What is crime? What determines what is dire? These are both subjective.

I am testing your position, so in this case it would mean your personal definitions.

First. You cannot cause death without harming the body. Harm is an instrinsinct part of death. Second the legal definition of murder is more then just harm.

It is "malice". If you kill someone because they happen to be standing in your parking spot and you want to park there, you don't feel any malice toward them. You just refuse to let them inconvenience you.
Yes, you are doing "harm". But it is not malicious.

Also, "harm" to the body isn't always the same as "harm" to the person. Sometimes a harm to the body causes a greater benefit to the person.

[LetThereBe]

I was not testing my ethics. I am testing yours.

You said "Harm occurs but is not the intent. Your purpose is not to cause harm, it is just an unhappy side effect."

I said "Based on that reasoning no criminal act is unethical as long as it was not their intent to harm. So I could rob someone ethically so long as my basic intent is not to harm, but to simply gain wealth."

That statement was regarding the definition of murder, not whether or not such a killing is ethical.

[truthreality]

Yep.

I am being sarcastic.

Ethics are subjective.

In the United States, some of what you are advocating is objectively unethical and illegal.

Once you create a basis for your ethics though we can determine if your views are consistent.

Well I consider murder and stealing wrong. Consider me crazy.

They evolved in a different way.

Not my point.

I doubt they would want to live with us.

They probably would want to live with us as we are easy prey and food for them.

So what?

Your ethical standards are similar to those of barbaric animals.

Perhaps.

Your entire premise is that ethics are subjective which applies to the restriction of human behavior. Be consistent.

At least in the US we try to avoid unnecessary restriction.

In the United States murdering someone for material gain and organs is illegal.

For example, we don't impose the ethics of various religious doctrines.

We do impose the ethics of the law though.

We institute what is necessary for a stable society.

Why? In your worldview everything is subjective. What is necessary? What is stable?

No, this one is not.

Oh really?

You need food. You need water. You need air.

Why do you need food? Why do you need water? Why do you need air? Needs are subjective.

Again, everything depends on your initial premises.

What is my initial premise?

It is the social contract. You can only impose your will on others as far as is necessary to get them to respect your rights.

What?

Not at all.

Yes.

It isn't "flip flopping" to use two different analogies.

Your not making any sense. The two different analogies you provided are completely different situations.

That is just testing two different boundary conditions. Your position must satisfy EVERY boundary condition, not just one.

Not if the boundary conditions are unrelated.

Consistency demands that if murder is bad and robbery is fine then there is a REASON.

I never said murder is bad and robbery is fine.

I am trying to determine that reason.

Your trying to determine why crimes are wrong? Seriously?

If you have no reason then your position is inconsistent.

Your asking for a reason why murder and robbery are bad? Seriously?

That is why I test with multiple different analogies.

Which makes no sense. The multiple analogies you provided are not related. BTW Your analogies and hypotheticals are ridiculous and absurd.

Your initial premises and logic.

What?

I am testing your position, so in this case it would mean your personal definitions.

Not really. I have no idea what you are doing quite frankly.

If you kill someone because they happen to be standing in your parking spot and you want to park there, you don't feel any malice toward them.You just refuse to let them inconvenience you.
Yes, you are doing "harm". But it is not malicious.

What? Murdering someone because they are inconveniencing you is not malice? Your opinion is subjective.

Also, "harm" to the body isn't always the same as "harm" to the person. Sometimes a harm to the body causes a greater benefit to the person.

I am talking about death.

[BlackSheep]

That statement was regarding the definition of murder, not whether or not such a killing is ethical.

Then I used the word ethical when i should not have.

You said "Harm occurs but is not the intent. Your purpose is not to cause harm, it is just an unhappy side effect."

The charge of Murder does not care about your end goal. It cares about the guilty act and the guilty mind. if you say you killed someone for X and not to kill them, so long as you realized that death would result or possibly result then it is murder, unless it is a specifically exempt situation.

[LetThereBe]

I am being sarcastic.

I am aware. It was still accurate.

In the United States, some of what you are advocating is objectively unethical and illegal.

Subjectively unethical, according to some people. Some of it illegal? Yes.

Well I consider murder and stealing wrong. Consider me crazy.

Try being on the brink of starvation, or having loved ones on the brink of starvation, and see if "right and wrong" change in any way.

Not my point.

Indeed, your example has no point.

They probably would want to live with us as we are easy prey and food for them.

No, they would get slaughtered shortly after killing a few people. They wouldn't conform to our society, just as we wouldn't to theirs.

Your ethical standards are similar to those of barbaric animals.

Not at all. My ethics are based on avoiding causing unnecessary harm. "Barbaric animals" don't give a damn about that.

Your entire premise is that ethics are subjective which applies to the restriction of human behavior. Be consistent.

They are subjective. Laws are based on those subjective opinions at large.

In the United States murdering someone for material gain and organs is illegal.

Indeed. This is a restriction that, as a society, we have deemed necessary.

We do impose the ethics of the law though.

The "ethics of the law"? The law should be based on ethics, but they are not equivalent things.

Why? In your worldview everything is subjective. What is necessary? What is stable?

No, not everything is subjective. Ethics are subjective.
What is necessary is what is required to have a productive society. One that is stable is one that does not collapse. It can continue operating at its current state for a long period of time.

Oh really?

Yep.

Why do you need food? Why do you need water? Why do you need air? Needs are subjective.

To live. To exist. If I do not have it I cease to exist, thus it is a need.

What is my initial premise?

This is hard to determine. You haven't been very detailed, and you leave broad caveats that make your ethics impossible to pin down.

What?

Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes.

No. The fact that you think it is shows that you know less than nothing. It is testing two separate conditions.

Your not making any sense. The two different analogies you provided are completely different situations.

Yes, they sure are. That is the point. If I was using the same situation I wouldn't be testing anything different.

Not if the boundary conditions are unrelated.

They are testing different things. Let me give you an example.
You can say that x=4.
I can give you a situation to test if it is true. x^2=16.
From THIS equation your premise that x=4 holds.
I can then ask if x+10=6.
If it turns out that this separate condition is also true, then your premise is inconsistent. It turns out that x != 4, instead x = -4.

The same can be said of any logical statement. It is testing the consistency of your position. Subjecting your claims to more than one test isn't "flip flopping". Calling it that is absurd and nonsensical.

I never said murder is bad and robbery is fine.

I believe the word you used is "justified". I ask why it can be justified but the other can not.

Your trying to determine why crimes are wrong? Seriously?

You're, and yes. Some crimes should not be crimes. Such laws are unnecessary and at times even counterproductive.

Your asking for a reason why murder and robbery are bad? Seriously?

You're, and yes. It is hard to understand your ethics if it isn't based on reason.

Which makes no sense. The multiple analogies you provided are not related. BTW Your analogies and hypotheticals are ridiculous and absurd.

They are related in that they test your position. They seem to reveal your position to be inconsistent.

What?

What part are you confused by? "Initial premises"? Or "logic"? I can sense that these are both things that you have difficulty understanding. Try a dictionary.

Not really. I have no idea what you are doing quite frankly.

I am trying to understand your system of ethics. You don't seem to have any kind of logical position on which they are based.

What? Murdering someone because they are inconveniencing you is not malice? Your opinion is subjective.

No, that is the definition of a word. Again, I suggest trying a dictionary.

I am talking about death.

I would say the same of even that.

[LetThereBe]

Then I used the word ethical when i should not have.

You said "Harm occurs but is not the intent. Your purpose is not to cause harm, it is just an unhappy side effect."

The charge of Murder does not care about your end goal. It cares about the guilty act and the guilty mind. if you say you killed someone for X and not to kill them, so long as you realized that death would result or possibly result then it is murder, unless it is a specifically exempt situation.

I again disagree, and think it comes down to the interpretation of a judge. The literal interpretation would certainly not make it murder unless it was malicious. It is homicide, yes, but not murder.
I am sure some judges would disagree.

[BlackSheep]

I again disagree, and think it comes down to the interpretation of a judge. The literal interpretation would certainly not make it murder unless it was malicious. It is homicide, yes, but not murder.
I am sure some judges would disagree.

Define malicious. Not an example, a definition.

[LetThereBe]

Define malicious. Not an example, a definition.

Intending to do harm.

[BlackSheep]

Intending to do harm.

If I kill you to take your money, I intend to do you harm. It may not be my main goal, but it is my intention.

[truthreality]

I am aware.

Good.

It was still accurate.

Accuracy requires an objective measuring system. Your statement was a subjective opinion.

Subjectively unethical, according to some people. Some of it illegal? Yes.

The people create laws in society to implement what they consider objectively right or wrong.

Try being on the brink of starvation, or having loved ones on the brink of starvation, and see if "right and wrong" change in any way.

I said stealing is wrong but I also said stealing is justified under extreme circumstances. Why shouldn't someone starve? Do you have an objective reason why they shouldn't?

Indeed, your example has no point.

The point of my example is that your thinking is akin to savage animals.

No, they would get slaughtered shortly after killing a few people.

If we went and lived with lions we would not have access to technology and would therefore be helpful. We would live in their society which would not be a good thing.

They wouldn't conform to our society,

No shit.

just as we wouldn't to theirs.

Meet a lion face to face in the wild and then tell me if you would not conform to them.

Not at all.

Yes.

My ethics are based on avoiding causing unnecessary harm.

The evidence does not support this statement. You advocated murdering someone simply because they inconvenience you. There are less harmful ways to deal with such a situation.

"Barbaric animals" don't give a damn about that.

Clearly neither do you.

Indeed. This is a restriction that, as a society, we have deemed necessary.

Society has determined that these acts are objectively wrong which is why they create laws.

The "ethics of the law"? The law should be based on ethics, but they are not equivalent things.

Laws are based on what the people consider objectively unethical.

No, not everything is subjective.

Your line of reasoning can apply to anything. I could make an argument that reality does not exist and therefore everything is and the world we live in is illusory.

Ethics are subjective.

According to you. Is it ok for someone to take all your possessions and money? Would you be ok with that because ethics are subjective?

What is necessary is what is required to have a productive society.

Necessity is subjective. Productivity is subjective. Society is subjective. Your opinion that we need to have a productive society is subjective.

One that is stable is one that does not collapse.

Stability is subjective. Your opinion that society should be stable and not collapse is subjective.

It can continue operating at its current state for a long period of time.

Why should society operate in a current state for a long period time? Do you have any objective evidence that it should?

To live. To exist. If I do not have it I cease to exist, thus it is a need.

Need is subjective. Why do we need to live? Why do we need to exist? Do we objectively need to live and exist?

This is hard to determine. You haven't been very detailed, and you leave broad caveats that make your ethics impossible to pin down.

Had you not created so many ridiculous hypotheticals and created a tangent my premise might be clear to you. I will give you a hint. It has to do with the topic of the OP: Veganism.

Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what a social contract is. Your definition in the previous post was incorrect.

It is testing two separate conditions.

That are unrelated.

If I was using the same situation I wouldn't be testing anything different.

Situations are different and have different circumstances.

They are testing different things.

If they are two different things then how can you expect me to be consistent. By that very logic my answers should be different.

Let me give you an example.

Please don't. Your examples make zero sense and are ridiculous.

You can say that x=4.
I can give you a situation to test if it is true. x^2=16.
From THIS equation your premise that x=4 holds.
I can then ask if x+10=6.
If it turns out that this separate condition is also true, then your premise is inconsistent. It turns out that x != 4, instead x = -4.

Seriously. Don't apply mathematics to ethics. The analogy you have provided doesn't support your argument.

P.S. The square root of 16 is 4 and -4. All you had to do was show this. Still. This does not help your argument.

The same can be said of any logical statement. It is testing the consistency of your position. Subjecting your claims to more than one test isn't "flip flopping". Calling it that is absurd and nonsensical.

By giving to completely different situations with different circumstances and different ethical conditions that require different responses.

I believe the word you used is "justified". I ask why it can be justified but the other can not.

I didn't say that.

Some crimes should not be crimes.

Subjective. Why shouldn't crimes be crimes? Why shouldn't all acts be crimes? Why should any acts be crimes? It's all subjective.

Such laws are unnecessary and at times even counterproductive.

What is unnecessary and counterproductive is subjective.

It is hard to understand your ethics if it isn't based on reason.

You haven't demonstrated any reason. Your arguments fall prey to your own line of reason and argumentation.

They are related in that they test your position.

First you say they are different and now you say they are related.

They seem to reveal your position to be inconsistent.

No. You have revealed inconsistency and flaws in your argumentation. You have not revealed any inconsistency in my position.

What part are you confused by? "Initial premises"? Or "logic"? I can sense that these are both things that you have difficulty understanding. Try a dictionary.

You stated that you were not aware of my initial premise earlier. You keep flip flopping.

I am trying to understand your system of ethics. You don't seem to have any kind of logical position on which they are based.

My position is logical and consistent you just keep changing your analogies and conditions.

No, that is the definition of a word. Again, I suggest trying a dictionary.

You didn't provide a correct definition of murder. Murdering someone because they are inconveniencing you is malice. I suggest reading basic law.

I would say the same of even that.

Do you know what causes death?

[LetThereBe]

If I kill you to take your money, I intend to do you harm. It may not be my main goal, but it is my intention.

No, your intention is to have my money. The death is incidental.