Well, I’ll assume you don’t mean the actual definition of murder here, and you mean to posit a moral argument. You highlight an animal’s sentience, right? If a being is conscious, can feel pain, and has a “will to live,” then ending that life for a non essential reason (like taste) is morally equivalent to murder.
I would disagree. There is a clear hierarchy or consciousness in this world. You distinguish between what you kill because it suits the moral compass and it is our nature.
There is no bloodless meal in this world. Our modern industrial culture is far from victimless. Do you cry for the millions of field animals? Rodents and ground nesting birds and rabbits and crows and snakes and all manners. Slaughtered by combine harvesters, tilling and planting.
Billions of insect deaths due to pesticides, which harm local water tables, killing fish and amphibians both.
If your goal was to minimize the lives lost, eating a cow would be the way to go.
Far less sentient deaths than the thousands of small animals killed to produce the same amount of nutrients.
I don’t really mean to be rude. But Kant already debunked personhood in this regard, as well.
The Moral Status of Animals
1.3 Personhood
Nonetheless, there is something important that is thought to distinguish humans from non-humans that is not reducible to the observation of behavior best explained by possessing a certain capacity, and that is our “personhood”. The notion of personhood identifies a category of morally considerable beings that is thought to be coextensive with humanity. Historically, Kant is the most noted defender of personhood as the quality that makes a being valuable and thus morally considerable (for a contemporary utilitarian discussion of personhood, see Varner 2012). Kant writes:
…every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will…Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves. (Kant [1785] 1998: [Ak 4: 428])
And:
The fact that the human being can have the representation “I” raises him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this he is a person….that is, a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one’s discretion. (Kant [1798] 2010: 239 [Ak 7: 127])
I… I don’t really know how do respond to this.If you’re going to respond, please engage with the material and provide a rebuttal. These works are in part what my rejection of veganism are built upon, specifically kant’s ideas on the moral status of personhood. I understand your frustration, but insulting me for no reason isn’t very productive for either of us. I want to be convinced. Calling me male-brained without expounding just pushes me away. The age of content doesn’t matter unless it’s science. We still use Hume’s form, after all. The is-ought gap as well. Hell, the lier paradox is 500+ years old! These are ethical and moral questions and claims you make. Our philosophies were bound to clash.
You didn’t really converse with me. You repeatedly insulted me in frustration and didn’t engage with me. If anything, I’m a prime candidate to convince for this stuff. Grew up watching the horroes of industrial farming then worked in a slaughterhouse. I’ve just never been convinced myself. I have no clue what your moral framework is built on. I don’t know how you identify personhood. I don’t know what axioms you work with. I was genuinely curious as to why I should make the switch to veganism.
That’s the problem with sentience, isn’t it? There’s a few ways to go about it. There was the works of rene decartes. He argued the hard point that animals are not sentient, and that pain is not enough. I would likely go for a different position. Sentience alone is not enough for moral consideration. You being sentient is not alone sufficient for you to be cared about. At most, sentience assures that you have some type of perspective in present only, but it does not entail that you care about anything, including death or suffering. Moral agency is what gives moral consideration directly. Moral agents can respond to moral positions and therefore be classified as moral or immoral. You don’t call a lion immoral, after all. Animals are not moral agents, and therefore whatever happens to them cannot be classified as a moral issue. That would be a categorical error. Despite this, I often ruminate on whether veganism may be the choice for me regardless of my position, since animals not being moral agents doesn’t really affect my position on their care and well-being. Perhaps when I know I’m secure, I will make the swap to veganism. Assuming I find that I really can reach all my nutrient goals and requirements with the same consistency.
do you think cows subsist off air? they need to eat plants, they’re inherently less efficient than just eating the plants grown, if you truly believe you minimize lives lost by killing cows you’re a child
Cows eating plants is insanely good for the environment. Approximately 60–70% of the world’s agricultural land is marginal or unarable. It’s too rocky, steep, or dry to grow crops like kale or soy. However, it can grow grass. Ruminants (like cows and sheep) can turn that otherwise useless grass into high-density protein. An effective way to fertilize without synthetic petroleum-based fertilizers. It would be a geographic impossibility to use that land for soy or kale anyway. Ruminants create value. Also, there is no reason to insult me. This discussion is good faith. (At least, I hope.) I genuinely want to learn and be convinced.
how is taking the life of something that doesnt want to die not murder, and yeah omnivore doesnt mean needs to eat meat
Well, I’ll assume you don’t mean the actual definition of murder here, and you mean to posit a moral argument. You highlight an animal’s sentience, right? If a being is conscious, can feel pain, and has a “will to live,” then ending that life for a non essential reason (like taste) is morally equivalent to murder. I would disagree. There is a clear hierarchy or consciousness in this world. You distinguish between what you kill because it suits the moral compass and it is our nature. There is no bloodless meal in this world. Our modern industrial culture is far from victimless. Do you cry for the millions of field animals? Rodents and ground nesting birds and rabbits and crows and snakes and all manners. Slaughtered by combine harvesters, tilling and planting. Billions of insect deaths due to pesticides, which harm local water tables, killing fish and amphibians both. If your goal was to minimize the lives lost, eating a cow would be the way to go. Far less sentient deaths than the thousands of small animals killed to produce the same amount of nutrients.
I don’t really mean to be rude. But Kant already debunked personhood in this regard, as well. The Moral Status of Animals
This stuff is more convincing to those not philosophically versed, but it will take more legwork with me.
what is this malebrained debatebro shit, you’re citing someone who lived over 200 years ago as a moral beacon, am i having a stroke???
I… I don’t really know how do respond to this.If you’re going to respond, please engage with the material and provide a rebuttal. These works are in part what my rejection of veganism are built upon, specifically kant’s ideas on the moral status of personhood. I understand your frustration, but insulting me for no reason isn’t very productive for either of us. I want to be convinced. Calling me male-brained without expounding just pushes me away. The age of content doesn’t matter unless it’s science. We still use Hume’s form, after all. The is-ought gap as well. Hell, the lier paradox is 500+ years old! These are ethical and moral questions and claims you make. Our philosophies were bound to clash.
yeah no i dont think its worth my time or sanity trying to converse with someone like you, good day
You didn’t really converse with me. You repeatedly insulted me in frustration and didn’t engage with me. If anything, I’m a prime candidate to convince for this stuff. Grew up watching the horroes of industrial farming then worked in a slaughterhouse. I’ve just never been convinced myself. I have no clue what your moral framework is built on. I don’t know how you identify personhood. I don’t know what axioms you work with. I was genuinely curious as to why I should make the switch to veganism.
maybe you are and maybe you aren’t, but i don’t have the energy to try and convince you why murdering sentient life is a bad thing
That’s the problem with sentience, isn’t it? There’s a few ways to go about it. There was the works of rene decartes. He argued the hard point that animals are not sentient, and that pain is not enough. I would likely go for a different position. Sentience alone is not enough for moral consideration. You being sentient is not alone sufficient for you to be cared about. At most, sentience assures that you have some type of perspective in present only, but it does not entail that you care about anything, including death or suffering. Moral agency is what gives moral consideration directly. Moral agents can respond to moral positions and therefore be classified as moral or immoral. You don’t call a lion immoral, after all. Animals are not moral agents, and therefore whatever happens to them cannot be classified as a moral issue. That would be a categorical error. Despite this, I often ruminate on whether veganism may be the choice for me regardless of my position, since animals not being moral agents doesn’t really affect my position on their care and well-being. Perhaps when I know I’m secure, I will make the swap to veganism. Assuming I find that I really can reach all my nutrient goals and requirements with the same consistency.
do you think cows subsist off air? they need to eat plants, they’re inherently less efficient than just eating the plants grown, if you truly believe you minimize lives lost by killing cows you’re a child
Cows eating plants is insanely good for the environment. Approximately 60–70% of the world’s agricultural land is marginal or unarable. It’s too rocky, steep, or dry to grow crops like kale or soy. However, it can grow grass. Ruminants (like cows and sheep) can turn that otherwise useless grass into high-density protein. An effective way to fertilize without synthetic petroleum-based fertilizers. It would be a geographic impossibility to use that land for soy or kale anyway. Ruminants create value. Also, there is no reason to insult me. This discussion is good faith. (At least, I hope.) I genuinely want to learn and be convinced.
i have absolutely no reason to believe that someone like you is genuinely acting in good faith
Someone like me? I’ve never even talked to you before? What have I said that could possibly indicate bad faith?