Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Moving the goalposts again, you claimed I would be "hard-pressed to find a professional philosopher who agrees", I gave you three prominent ones.
Your claim that their positions are "novel and lack entrenchment" is factually incorrect. Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights is literally a foundational textbook taught in nearly every university applied ethics course in the world. Christine Korsgaard is one of the leading scholars at Harvard.
And your point that they are "directly disputed by their peers" can be said for the whole of philosophy? Kant is disputed. Utilitarianism is disputed. If being "disputed by peers" means an ethical framework is invalid, then literally no ethical framework exists.
but, within the whole collection of professional philosophers, they are exceptional.
You have just spent this entire conversation trying to discredit the philosophers, the economists, and the logic rather than actually defending your own choices. This debate has reached its end because you aren't arguing to find the truth; you are arguing to protect your habits.
i have nothing to defend. i've spent the whole time pointing out the speciousness of your arguments.
i never wanted a debate at all, but i did get 7 more replies after you sent this one.
and both their works fly in the face of historical deontological thought. it's a tradition that eclipses their works by 200 years. they sorely lack entrenchment within deontological thought, and, as I said, are directly refuted by their peers.
You are relying on a massive Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Immanuel Kant lived 200 years ago. He also lived in an era where mainstream philosophical thought routinely excluded women and non-white races from full moral consideration. Does the fact that human rights and feminism "fly in the face of historical 18th-century thought" mean they lack entrenchment? No. It means humanity evolved, our scientific understanding of biology and consciousness evolved, and our ethical frameworks were updated to fix historical blind spots.
Deontology is a logical framework, not a 200-year-old religious dogma where we are forced to worship Kant's 18th-century biological ignorance. Korsgaard and Regan didn’t invent a 'novel' system; they took the core deontological rule (do not use a conscious subject merely as a means to an end) and applied it accurately using modern science.
But more importantly, you are hiding behind a history of philosophy lesson to avoid answering the actual argument.
this isn't the first time i've encountered korsgaard, and i don't find your retelling any more compelling than the first time.
Whether you find an argument 'compelling' is subjective. Whether an argument is logically consistent is objective, and your position hasn't been.
You’ve spent this entire conversation moving the goalposts, dodging every direct analogy (the vaccines, the construction accidents, the hitman), and denying the basic math of supply chains, all to defend the idea that intentional slaughter is morally identical to accidental death.
When you can no longer refute the logic, dismissing the explanation is a common way to exit the conversation, but it doesn't resolve the contradictions you’ve failed to address.
that didn't happen
debunking isn't dodging.
i haven't actually made an argument. i'm objecting to your argument.
this is an oversimplification. a strawman.
today, they are well-entrenched. and it's possible animal rights will eventually gain the same entrenchment. but, at the moment, they are not entrenched, and i predict that they will be excised from deontological thought in the next century.
You are now moving from logical argument to prophecy. Predicting what will happen in the next century is not a rebuttal to the arguments being made today.
Whether or not animal rights will be 'excised' from deontology in 100 years is irrelevant to the question of whether it is morally right to slaughter sentient beings for sensory pleasure right now.
You're using this prediction as a shield to avoid the present-day reality of your actions. It's a convenient coincidence that your 'prediction' perfectly aligns with your personal desire to keep eating meat.
you're right.
sure. do you want to argue that it's not?
you're jumping to conclusions