Pomp

I am continuing an off-topic discussion from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000095" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

spin,

Claiming to be an omnivore abnegates responsibility. You eat meat because that is your structure. That makes meat eating not subjective at all. Goodbye subjectivity.

I disagree. I do not eat meat because "that is {my} structure." My structure (IOW, my genetic makeup) gives me an inherent taste (value) for eating meat. It is still my choice whether or not to act on that value. We are not slaves to our structure. You, for example, happen to be an omnivore who, to the best of my knowledge chooses not to eat meat.

I think we can completely divorce this discussion from meat eating and the implications thereof. The salient point here is that "structure" encourages certain behaviors, but it does not mandate them, unless one supposes that human beings are complete automatons. For example, my "structure" encourages me to attempt sex with any attractive woman I meet. I obviously do not do so, because I realize that my interests, sexual and otherwise, are better served by refraining from such attempts.

One should add that claiming to be "meat loving" rests on one's taste -- an interesting claim for a subjectivist to bring up, for of course most food taste is formed before our subjectivist had the opportunity to be subjective about it.

I think you are misapprehending the meaning of "subjective" as it is used by moral subjectivists. The fact that I prefer the taste of meat (or that I prefer the taste of chocolate ice cream to asparagus, or that I prefer freedom to slavery, or that I prefer gentle carresses to violent slaps) is a fact about a subjective value that I hold. You seem to be claiming that any value that I did not make a conscious decision to hold ought not be considered subjective.

spin

And your hypothetically inherent structure, given an upbringing in a wife-beating family, makes your structure a physically abusive one, ie you persist in the physical abuse [generic] you come to accept as normal.

One doesn't build anything on the mere wantonness of one's body.

Your food tastes, you should be able to see, at least to a partial degree are training when you are young. At any rate, you have them before you have the ability to choose.

I prefer the taste of chocolate ice cream to asparagus, or that I prefer freedom to slavery, or that I prefer gentle carresses to violent slaps, burp.

tronvillain

spin:
Actually, that looks like the definition of subjectivity.

tronvillain

Now, you apparently claim to have an objective morality - care to explain how you achieved it? I can't be sure, but I suspect that it is ultimately subjective.

Pomp

spin,

And your hypothetically inherent structure, given an upbringing in a wife-beating family, makes your structure a physically abusive one, ie you persist in the physical abuse [generic] you come to accept as normal.

Presumably, this is in response to my argument that a natural omnivore is not, by virtue of being an omnivore, absolved of any responsibility for actions following from his/her omnivorous nature.

I agree with you that some behaviors are simply conditioned into us and have little to do with our moral beliefs, objective or subjective. However, it is possible to examine one's habitual actions and judge whether or not they are in accordance with one's moral beliefs. The abusive person in your example is as responsible for his actions as I am responsible for my dietary choices.

Again, unless you advocate the "human beings as automatons" hypothesis, there is no reason that observing that one is an omnivore would absolve one from responsibility for one's dietary choices.

One doesn't build anything on the mere wantonness of one's body.

Throwing around words such as "wantonness," which presumes that the action we're discussing is, indeed, immoral does not aid the cause of civil discourse.

Your food tastes, you should be able to see, at least to a partial degree are training when you are young. At any rate, you have them before you have the ability to choose.

True, but irrelevant, as far as I can see. Why are you drawing a distinction between values that an agent chooses to posses and values that an agent happens to possess due to genetic or cultural influence?