Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-26-2002, 01:36 PM

Malaclypse the Younger:
-----------------------
As a moral subjectivist and a meat-loving omnivore,
-----------------------

This is an interesting contradiction, claiming subjectivity and denying it at the same time, isn't it? I'm trying to work out what you needed to edit this brief statement of yours for.

Malaclypse the Younger:
-----------------------
I hereby challenge anyone who advocates the ethical necessity of vegetarianism to a formal debate.
-----------------------

I doubt whether you'll find anyone who will be able to provide you with something you might call ethical necessity for vegetarianism. I don't make any difference between ethics and morals and as you claim to be a moral subjectivist, which means to me someone without any morals whatsoever, there is absolutely no necessity about anything moral or ethical for you, so naturally you can never be satisfied.

Good luck.

Pomp · 03-26-2002, 02:06 PM

spin,

MtY: As a moral subjectivist and a meat-loving omnivore...

spin: This is an interesting contradiction, claiming subjectivity and denying it at the same time, isn't it?

I'm trying to work out how you managed to infer this meaning from MtY's sentence. Can you elaborate?

spin again: I don't make any difference between ethics and morals and as you claim to be a moral subjectivist, which means to me someone without any morals whatsoever, there is absolutely no necessity about anything moral or ethical for you, so naturally you can never be satisfied.

I would be very interested to see a thread in which you defend your repeated assertion that a moral subjectivist hasn't "any morals whatsoever." As every moral subjectivist I have ever met considers him/herself to be bound by any number of moral constraints, I have no idea what gave you this idea, but I'd love to see you explain your reasoning.

spin · 03-26-2002, 02:25 PM

Being a moral subjectivist and claiming to be an omnivore doesn't allow one to be a subjectivist about eating meat does it?

A moral subjectivist has no yard stick for his/her morals. As I understand morals they only have sense when measured by something. This is why a supreme god cannot be moral.

tronvillain · 03-26-2002, 02:37 PM

So, are you unwilling or unable to defend your supposed objective morality? This seems like exactly the sort of thread you'd be enthusiastic about, given the two vegetarian threads.

x-member · 03-26-2002, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Oh no! Not again

Pomp · 03-26-2002, 02:50 PM

spin,

Being a moral subjectivist and claiming to be an omnivore doesn't allow one to be a subjectivist about eating meat does it?

I don't understand how this follows. The fact that MtY is, like all humans, a natural omnivore does not imply that is is objectively morally required that MtY eat meat. It does establish that MtY has a natural inclination to subjectively value meat eating that must be considered in any subjectivist moral judgement about his diet.

A moral subjectivist has no yard stick for his/her morals. As I understand morals they only have sense when measured by something. This is why a supreme god cannot be moral.

Wonders never cease. I agree with you on one point: a supreme god cannot be moral.

As for your notion that a subjectivist has no "yardstick," moral subjectivists obviously disagree with you. I don't want to debate an off-topic issue in this thread though. I'm always willing to participate in a discussion, if you care to start a new thread.

Kachana · 03-26-2002, 03:00 PM

Malaclypse,

What about PunkerSluta? I think he might have left his contact details on the 'a plea for vegetarianism' thread. He's a moral subjectivist (well, he doesn't believe moral statements have are objective truth status over all time, even though he applies the term objective to his morals, in that it is irrational for someone to eat meat, [I think]) and an atheist too, which would make for a cleaner debate. Perhaps you could invite him?

Marduk · 03-26-2002, 03:03 PM

The Antichris said:
"I'm not a vegetarian, but I do have a problem resolving some of, what I percieve to be, the moral ambiguities of meat-eating. On the one hand, most people have an innate repugnance to gratuitous cruelty to animals, whilst on the other, most of us are happy to breed and slaughter animals for food. I cannot believe I'm alone in struggling with this issue. If I were, the world would be made up solely of totally content meat eaters on the one hand and militant veggie fundies on the other - unlikely I think.

I have no wish to proselytize or condemn, so I am a little confused at the apparent ridicule this subject engenders."

I agree 100%, I still eat some meat, mostly because I'm no cook and not very imaginative either, my idea of being a vegetarian is eating a salad every meal, can't do it.
It bothers me to know animals are penned and slaughtered in the manner they are because I can't think of something better to make for lunch. It is not like I'm a cat who has to have meat, I could get by without.
I feel that humans, being animals and only differing from most others by a matter of degree should voluntarily give up this barbaric unnecessary practice. But as I said since I'm having a rough time doing it I would not favor making this mandatory.
Morals, being completely subjective I see nothing much to debate, wouldn't be good at it anyway, it's mostly a matter of opinion.
I don't really get the derision either, are there many here who enjoy seeing sentient creatures suffer? Why? Lot's of us here have our own pets (see MD pets thread)
I like the quote by Milan Kundera:
"Mankinds true moral test , it's fundamental test, which lies deeply buried from view, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy, animals"

spin · 03-26-2002, 03:15 PM

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.

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.

Pomp · 03-26-2002, 03:31 PM

spin,

I do not wish to pursue an off-topic discussion in this thread. I have started a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000099" target="_blank">new thread</a> in which I respond to your latest post.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2002, 01:36 PM	#41
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Malaclypse the Younger: ----------------------- As a moral subjectivist and a meat-loving omnivore, ----------------------- This is an interesting contradiction, claiming subjectivity and denying it at the same time, isn't it? I'm trying to work out what you needed to edit this brief statement of yours for. Malaclypse the Younger: ----------------------- I hereby challenge anyone who advocates the ethical necessity of vegetarianism to a formal debate. ----------------------- I doubt whether you'll find anyone who will be able to provide you with something you might call ethical necessity for vegetarianism. I don't make any difference between ethics and morals and as you claim to be a moral subjectivist, which means to me someone without any morals whatsoever, there is absolutely no necessity about anything moral or ethical for you, so naturally you can never be satisfied. Good luck.

03-26-2002, 02:06 PM	#42
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, MtY: As a moral subjectivist and a meat-loving omnivore... spin: This is an interesting contradiction, claiming subjectivity and denying it at the same time, isn't it? I'm trying to work out how you managed to infer this meaning from MtY's sentence. Can you elaborate? spin again: I don't make any difference between ethics and morals and as you claim to be a moral subjectivist, which means to me someone without any morals whatsoever, there is absolutely no necessity about anything moral or ethical for you, so naturally you can never be satisfied. I would be very interested to see a thread in which you defend your repeated assertion that a moral subjectivist hasn't "any morals whatsoever." As every moral subjectivist I have ever met considers him/herself to be bound by any number of moral constraints, I have no idea what gave you this idea, but I'd love to see you explain your reasoning.

03-26-2002, 02:25 PM	#43
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Being a moral subjectivist and claiming to be an omnivore doesn't allow one to be a subjectivist about eating meat does it? A moral subjectivist has no yard stick for his/her morals. As I understand morals they only have sense when measured by something. This is why a supreme god cannot be moral.

03-26-2002, 02:37 PM	#44
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	So, are you unwilling or unable to defend your supposed objective morality? This seems like exactly the sort of thread you'd be enthusiastic about, given the two vegetarian threads.

03-26-2002, 02:50 PM	#46
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, Being a moral subjectivist and claiming to be an omnivore doesn't allow one to be a subjectivist about eating meat does it? I don't understand how this follows. The fact that MtY is, like all humans, a natural omnivore does not imply that is is objectively morally required that MtY eat meat. It does establish that MtY has a natural inclination to subjectively value meat eating that must be considered in any subjectivist moral judgement about his diet. A moral subjectivist has no yard stick for his/her morals. As I understand morals they only have sense when measured by something. This is why a supreme god cannot be moral. Wonders never cease. I agree with you on one point: a supreme god cannot be moral. As for your notion that a subjectivist has no "yardstick," moral subjectivists obviously disagree with you. I don't want to debate an off-topic issue in this thread though. I'm always willing to participate in a discussion, if you care to start a new thread.

03-26-2002, 03:00 PM	#47
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	Malaclypse, What about PunkerSluta? I think he might have left his contact details on the 'a plea for vegetarianism' thread. He's a moral subjectivist (well, he doesn't believe moral statements have are objective truth status over all time, even though he applies the term objective to his morals, in that it is irrational for someone to eat meat, [I think]) and an atheist too, which would make for a cleaner debate. Perhaps you could invite him?

03-26-2002, 03:03 PM	#48
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	The Antichris said: "I'm not a vegetarian, but I do have a problem resolving some of, what I percieve to be, the moral ambiguities of meat-eating. On the one hand, most people have an innate repugnance to gratuitous cruelty to animals, whilst on the other, most of us are happy to breed and slaughter animals for food. I cannot believe I'm alone in struggling with this issue. If I were, the world would be made up solely of totally content meat eaters on the one hand and militant veggie fundies on the other - unlikely I think. I have no wish to proselytize or condemn, so I am a little confused at the apparent ridicule this subject engenders." I agree 100%, I still eat some meat, mostly because I'm no cook and not very imaginative either, my idea of being a vegetarian is eating a salad every meal, can't do it. It bothers me to know animals are penned and slaughtered in the manner they are because I can't think of something better to make for lunch. It is not like I'm a cat who has to have meat, I could get by without. I feel that humans, being animals and only differing from most others by a matter of degree should voluntarily give up this barbaric unnecessary practice. But as I said since I'm having a rough time doing it I would not favor making this mandatory. Morals, being completely subjective I see nothing much to debate, wouldn't be good at it anyway, it's mostly a matter of opinion. I don't really get the derision either, are there many here who enjoy seeing sentient creatures suffer? Why? Lot's of us here have our own pets (see MD pets thread) I like the quote by Milan Kundera: "Mankinds true moral test , it's fundamental test, which lies deeply buried from view, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy, animals"

03-26-2002, 03:15 PM	#49
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	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. 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.

03-26-2002, 03:31 PM	#50
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, I do not wish to pursue an off-topic discussion in this thread. I have started a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000099" target="_blank">new thread</a> in which I respond to your latest post. [ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.