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
You're confusing 'debating' with 'adopting a school of thought'. I'm using multiple ethical frameworks because you've failed to maintain a consistent position across any of them.
When I point out the Deontological error (that intentional slaughter is not the same as an accidental farming death), you deflect.
When I point out the Consequentialist reality (that meat production causes more 'incidental' crop deaths than plant-based diets), you call it an 'epistemic flaw.'
You are not arguing for a refined, consistent ethical system; you are arguing for moral nihilism. You are using the 'epistemic flaw' argument, the idea that because we can't know everything, we are responsible for nothing, to absolve yourself of all responsibility.
consequentialism suffers from the epistemic flaw, whether you recognize it or not.
You are repeating a standard, undergraduate-level critique of consequentialism as if it were a unique insight that invalidates the reality of animal agriculture. It doesn’t.
it does invalidate consequentialism, so if you have objections to animal agriculture, you'll need another tact.
Even within Deontology:
Deontology strictly dictates that it is a moral wrong to intentionally use a sentient being purely as a means to an end. When you buy meat, you are financing the intentional slaughter of an innocent being for your sensory pleasure. Crop deaths, on the other hand, are an unintended, incidental byproduct of food production. In a duty-based framework, the moral gulf between an accidental byproduct (harvest deaths) and a deliberate, systematic execution (slaughter) is absolute. By participating in intentional slaughter, you are violating a core deontological principle.
You claim that trying to include animals in deontology is bullshit because they aren't rational human agents. But human infants, individuals with severe cognitive disabilities, and patients in advanced dementia also lack traditional rational moral agency. Yet, as a deontologist, you would agree it is a horrific violation of duty to slaughter and eat them.
If you protect non-rational humans under your framework but exclude animals who possess the exact same capacity to suffer, feel pain, and experience life, your boundary isn't rational agency'l at all. It is just arbitrary speciesism.
speciesism isn't arbitrary. it's necessary for right action.
on the contrary. i'm making avowed consequentialists responsible for all possible future events. they need to bite the bullet on that to remain consequentialists. since i'm not a consequentialist, it has no bearing on me.
By claiming "I’m not a consequentialist" as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed, you aren't winning an intellectual debate; you are admitting that you have no consistent ethical standard. You are essentially saying, "I don’t have a moral framework that governs my choices; I have a list of convenient excuses."
If you aren't a Consequentialist, and your arguments against Deontology have failed, what is your moral framework? It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.
that's not what happened. i've never paid to have a sentient being killed (except my dog, but he was real old). but that aside, i said "i'm not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning about what's good or bad doesn't apply to my actions."
Declaring "I’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning doesn’t apply to me" is exactly like a thief saying, "I don't subscribe to the concept of property rights, so your ethical reasoning about stealing doesn't apply to my actions."
Moral frameworks evaluate the objective reality of actions and their victims. Your arguments have collapsed into "I didn't do it" and "the rules don't apply to me" which is either low effort trolling or low effort reasoning.
i'm arguing for deontology, but i'm also saying that the arguments that attempt to shoehorn animal rights into deontology are bullshit.
Ok so if you are arguing for Deontology, a core pillar of Deontology (Kantian ethics) is that you must never treat a being with inherent value purely as a means to an end.
By asserting that animals don't belong in this framework, you are arguing that because animals lack human-level rational agency, they have zero inherent value and can be treated strictly as commodities, tools, or resources for human pleasure.
You aren't protecting the integrity of Deontology; you are just drawing an arbitrary line at the human species boundary so you can enjoy eating meat without violating your personal rules.
this is just a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
You seem to be a deontologist who draws a rigid moral boundary at the edge of the human species. You believe that because animals lack human-level rational agency, we owe them no direct moral duties. Is that correct?
pretty close, and a far cry from your last comment.
no, i am still involved in that argument, and haven't moved my position at all.
If you haven’t moved your position despite the counter-arguments regarding intent, supply chain dynamics, and trophic levels, then we have reached a permanent impasse.
A debate where one side refuses to engage with the logical implications of their position is no longer a debate; it is simply a monologue. I have provided the necessary distinctions regarding the intentionality of slaughter versus the incidental nature of harvest deaths.
Your refusal to address the primary-cause responsibility is not a logical stance, it is a choice to remain static.
Since you are not willing to update your position based on the logic presented, there is no further value in this conversation.
and i have sufficiently rebutted this
and yet you responded to me 4 more times since you wrote this comment. look. i don't want any responses from you. i haven't since my first rebuttal. so like, have a nice life. but expect that when you say something specious or flat out untrue, i might call it out.
Waking up to 35 messages from you this morning is hilarious, especially followed by "I don't want any responses."
I’ll gladly take you up on that. This thread speaks for itself anyway. Have a nice life doing whatever it is you're trying to achieve here.