Morals, that’s religion right there, and when a religion starts from the default of assuming it’s the only right answer, it’s a shit religion, no matter what other arguments are involved.
would you get mad if someone kicked a dog for fun? Would it upset you if someone punched you in the face or stole your stuff? If so gtfo with that religious attitude, morals are only related to religion and the rest of us enlightened atheists can do anything we want
edit: to be clear, morals are important and good when they’re constructed rationally to protect sentient beings (human and non-human) from exploitation and abuse. Religious morals are deeply problematic because they’re not constructed rationally, and they try to restrict consenting adults from doing certain things together and they allow other horrific behaviors as totally fine. There’s a large, meaningful difference between animal rights and religious morals
Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.
Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.
There is a lot of behaviours and quirks that we’re evolved with and which we unequivocally consider being immoral. Like, racism for example.
If your morality includes promoting well-being of others, killing and eating said others, while having perfectly good alternative, goes kinda against it. If you for some reason only include humans (and probably dogs and cats I suppose) in a list of others that you care about, animal farms still contribute so much to our downfall, advocating for not doing it is the only consistent position.
Obviously, it’s not illegal to admit that your morality doesn’t goes beyond the boundaries of your body (or your family, whatever), but I would argue that we kind of need different word for it at this point.
There are multiple incorrect interpretations you are picturing. I did not say every behavior that came to existence are moral. Nor is evolution itself moral. I meant that morality came to existence because of human evolution as a whole, because it allows greater growth of humans and what is greater is selected through natural selection. Well being of humans is also not well being of singular or a single family. They would often be at counter to each other. Eating and killing others is obviously detrimental to humanity even if it would have benefited a single individual.
Benefit of humanity extends indirectly to other animals. But not directly. That is, the benefit of other animal does not matter, cats and dogs included. But these animals, including farm animals, or wildlife, do bring positive value to humanity. As an hyperbolic example, if skinning cats alive somehow benefited humanity, I would consider that a moral act and our perception of that act would follow. Furthering this example, we don’t consider annihilation of mosquitos (which humans actively partake in) to be immoral (just questionable consequences) because they seemingly bring no benefit to humanity.
My view on morality is not arbitrary. It is a question of what is good for humans as a whole. If yes, it is moral. If not, it is immoral.
See, there’s that religion creeping in again.
Morals, that’s religion right there, and when a religion starts from the default of assuming it’s the only right answer, it’s a shit religion, no matter what other arguments are involved.
Morals aren’t religion, at all.
Religion can be said to be an expression of moral alignment, but morals are baked into you, braided into your meat, if you will.
would you get mad if someone kicked a dog for fun? Would it upset you if someone punched you in the face or stole your stuff? If so gtfo with that religious attitude, morals are only related to religion and the rest of us enlightened atheists can do anything we want
edit: to be clear, morals are important and good when they’re constructed rationally to protect sentient beings (human and non-human) from exploitation and abuse. Religious morals are deeply problematic because they’re not constructed rationally, and they try to restrict consenting adults from doing certain things together and they allow other horrific behaviors as totally fine. There’s a large, meaningful difference between animal rights and religious morals
Lmmfao!
Boy howdy, did you jump the rails on that one.
I love when vegans get all zealot and het up :)
🙄
;)
Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.
Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.
There is a lot of behaviours and quirks that we’re evolved with and which we unequivocally consider being immoral. Like, racism for example.
If your morality includes promoting well-being of others, killing and eating said others, while having perfectly good alternative, goes kinda against it. If you for some reason only include humans (and probably dogs and cats I suppose) in a list of others that you care about, animal farms still contribute so much to our downfall, advocating for not doing it is the only consistent position.
Obviously, it’s not illegal to admit that your morality doesn’t goes beyond the boundaries of your body (or your family, whatever), but I would argue that we kind of need different word for it at this point.
There are multiple incorrect interpretations you are picturing. I did not say every behavior that came to existence are moral. Nor is evolution itself moral. I meant that morality came to existence because of human evolution as a whole, because it allows greater growth of humans and what is greater is selected through natural selection. Well being of humans is also not well being of singular or a single family. They would often be at counter to each other. Eating and killing others is obviously detrimental to humanity even if it would have benefited a single individual.
Benefit of humanity extends indirectly to other animals. But not directly. That is, the benefit of other animal does not matter, cats and dogs included. But these animals, including farm animals, or wildlife, do bring positive value to humanity. As an hyperbolic example, if skinning cats alive somehow benefited humanity, I would consider that a moral act and our perception of that act would follow. Furthering this example, we don’t consider annihilation of mosquitos (which humans actively partake in) to be immoral (just questionable consequences) because they seemingly bring no benefit to humanity.
My view on morality is not arbitrary. It is a question of what is good for humans as a whole. If yes, it is moral. If not, it is immoral.
Psst, be vewy vewy kwiet, I’m twowwing vegans.