I don't think it's morally wrong. And this not for any convincing argument, but because I just axiomatically don't value non-human lives. This isn't one of the arguments you addressed because I don't justify this by saying that they have inferior intelligence or are less conscious since that lands us in even more moral entanglements where it may be alright to kill certain humans.
This means that killing animals, causing them pain, etc. is not a problem to me.
I'm not necessarily sure about this viewpoint, but I'd like to see an argument against this. The only convincing argument I've seen for vegetarianism is that it'll conserve resources, which isn't relevant here.

Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Okay, let me illustrate. You have a choice of either A or B... which one is morally right? I don't know what game you are playing, but can you get to the point? I'm not playing any game. You need to pick either A or B... Hell I'll also give you C D and E also... All represent a choice. Which one is the most morally correct action?

With my current knowledge, I must say they are all moral acts.

Immortal said: I don't think it's morally wrong. And this not for any convincing argument, but because I just axiomatically don't value non-human lives. This isn't one of the arguments you addressed because I don't justify this by saying that they have inferior intelligence or are less conscious since that land us in even more moral entanglements where it may be alright to kill certain humans. This means that killing animals, causing them pain, etc. is not a problem to me. I'm not necessarily sure about this viewpoint, but I'd like to see an argument against this. The only convincing argument I've seen for vegetarianism is that it'll conserve resources, which isn't relevant here.

There probably wouldn't be an argument put against you. The fact that you have no problem with causing animals pain or even killing them would show that you're completely inhumane, in which case they probably wouldnt bother trying to convince you of anything.

Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Okay, let me illustrate. You have a choice of either A or B... which one is morally right? I don't know what game you are playing, but can you get to the point? I'm not playing any game. You need to pick either A or B... Hell I'll also give you C D and E also... All represent a choice. Which one is the most morally correct action? With my current knowledge, I must say they are all moral acts.

Exactly. It's impossible to answer the question. Why though? If all morality has to do with is an idea then you should be able to answer this question with ease. I can have an idea that A is more moral than B without knowing anything. The fact is you have to have an understanding of things to have a knowledge of things. To answer your question if eating meat is moral then we must get an understanding of what eating meat consists of and what about the action would or would not make it moral.

Also, I believe in a objective moral value. If there was no objectivism in morality (which you claim) then we wouldn't be able to say with absolute that Hitler was evil

Jay520 said: Immortal said: I don't think it's morally wrong. And this not for any convincing argument, but because I just axiomatically don't value non-human lives. This isn't one of the arguments you addressed because I don't justify this by saying that they have inferior intelligence or are less conscious since that land us in even more moral entanglements where it may be alright to kill certain humans. This means that killing animals, causing them pain, etc. is not a problem to me. I'm not necessarily sure about this viewpoint, but I'd like to see an argument against this. The only convincing argument I've seen for vegetarianism is that it'll conserve resources, which isn't relevant here. There probably wouldn't be an argument put against you. The fact that you have no problem with causing animals pain or even killing them would show that you're completely inhumane, in which case they probably wouldnt bother trying to convince you of anything.

I'm sorry, but I'm genuinely offended by that. The vast majority of the world accepts violence towards animals, at least passively. Yes, some of us make exceptions, such as dogs in many cultures, but no one thinks twice about killing an insect, for example. And calling most of humanity inhumane is, frankly, an oxymoron.

Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Okay, let me illustrate. You have a choice of either A or B... which one is morally right? I don't know what game you are playing, but can you get to the point? I'm not playing any game. You need to pick either A or B... Hell I'll also give you C D and E also... All represent a choice. Which one is the most morally correct action? With my current knowledge, I must say they are all moral acts. Exactly. It's impossible to answer the question. Why though? If all morality has to do with is an idea then you should be able to answer this question with ease. I can have an idea that A is more moral than B without knowing anything. The fact is you have to have an understanding of things to have a knowledge of things. To answer your question if eating meat is moral then we must get an understanding of what eating meat consists of and what about the action would or would not make it moral. Also, I believe in a objective moral value. If there was no objectivism in morality (which you claim) then we wouldn't be able to say with absolute that Hitler was evil

*sigh* you could have just said this earlier and it would have saved us both a lot of time.

Anyway, I never said morality was based completely on ideas.

About objective moral values. Sure, there are some cases where the moral choice is objective. But there are also some cases where the moral choice is subjective (like eating meat). Tbh, I don't care if you think Hitler is or isn't evil. Some people think Hitler was evil, some people think he was just misguided. It doesn't really matter what you think of him.

Immortal said: Jay520 said: Immortal said: I don't think it's morally wrong. And this not for any convincing argument, but because I just axiomatically don't value non-human lives. This isn't one of the arguments you addressed because I don't justify this by saying that they have inferior intelligence or are less conscious since that land us in even more moral entanglements where it may be alright to kill certain humans. This means that killing animals, causing them pain, etc. is not a problem to me. I'm not necessarily sure about this viewpoint, but I'd like to see an argument against this. The only convincing argument I've seen for vegetarianism is that it'll conserve resources, which isn't relevant here. There probably wouldn't be an argument put against you. The fact that you have no problem with causing animals pain or even killing them would show that you're completely inhumane, in which case they probably wouldnt bother trying to convince you of anything. I'm sorry, but I'm genuinely offended by that. The vast majority of the world accepts violence towards animals, at least passively. Yes, some of us make exceptions, such as dogs in many cultures, but no one thinks twice about killing an insect, for example. And calling most of humanity inhumane is, frankly, an oxymoron.

You're right that humanity specifies which animals are okay to harm and which aren't. However, you did not specify any certain animals. You just said harming/killing animals wasn't a problem with you. So if you were driving down the road and accidentally ran over your neighbor's dog then it wouldn't be a problem with you. Perhaps inhumane is the wrong word, but most people wouldn't consider you mentally healthy.

Jay520 said: You're right that humanity specifies which animals are okay to harm and which aren't. However, you did not specify any certain animals. You just said harming/killing animals wasn't a problem with you. So if you were driving down the road and accidentally ran over your neighbor's dog then it wouldn't be a problem with you. Perhaps inhumane is the wrong word, but most people wouldn't consider you mentally healthy.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the rest of your argument, but there's a different reason for which running over my neighbour's dog is immoral. For me, it's immoral because the dog was very valuable to my neighbour; not because the dog's life was valuable to me, but because my neighbour's sentiments for his dog should be valuable to me. Mind you, I'm saying this in a hypothetical moral state for me because, since I've been raised in a society that appreciates dogs, I can't help but feel horrible about killing one.

That feels morally incoherent to me, though. I know I'm alright with killing chickens. I wouldn't lose any sleep over accidentally killing a chicken so why should I do differently for killing a dog? Sure, there's certain objective differences between killing a dog and a chicken, but there's no real logic towards being selective here. If I were raised in a Chinese culture (I heard somewhere that they eat dogs), then I wouldn't regret killing a dog. Therefore, if I see killing dogs as wrong, I'm effectively calling all Chinese culture inhumane, which I'm rather unwilling to do.

Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Jay520 said: Max King of the Wild said: Okay, let me illustrate. You have a choice of either A or B... which one is morally right? I don't know what game you are playing, but can you get to the point? I'm not playing any game. You need to pick either A or B... Hell I'll also give you C D and E also... All represent a choice. Which one is the most morally correct action? With my current knowledge, I must say they are all moral acts. Exactly. It's impossible to answer the question. Why though? If all morality has to do with is an idea then you should be able to answer this question with ease. I can have an idea that A is more moral than B without knowing anything. The fact is you have to have an understanding of things to have a knowledge of things. To answer your question if eating meat is moral then we must get an understanding of what eating meat consists of and what about the action would or would not make it moral. Also, I believe in a objective moral value. If there was no objectivism in morality (which you claim) then we wouldn't be able to say with absolute that Hitler was evil *sigh* you could have just said this earlier and it would have saved us both a lot of time. Anyway, I never said morality was based completely on ideas. About objective moral values. Sure, there are some cases where the moral choice is objective. But there are also some cases where the moral choice is subjective (like eating meat). Tbh, I don't care if you think Hitler is or isn't evil. Some people think Hitler was evil, some people think he was just misguided. It doesn't really matter what you think of him.

You are really murking up the water here. Either a choice is wrong or right. Not sometimes it's wrong sometimes it's right. There is no reason why it would be subjective. It cant be right for one person and wrong for another. You can say it's morally wrong for someone of a certain religion but not for the people who don't hold that religion but all that means is that either someone is right and someone is wrong. But since there is no way to identify which is which we can't say who is right.

Immortal said: Jay520 said: You're right that humanity specifies which animals are okay to harm and which aren't. However, you did not specify any certain animals. You just said harming/killing animals wasn't a problem with you. So if you were driving down the road and accidentally ran over your neighbor's dog then it wouldn't be a problem with you. Perhaps inhumane is the wrong word, but most people wouldn't consider you mentally healthy. I'm not sure I'm understanding the rest of your argument, but there's a different reason for which running over my neighbour's dog is immoral. For me, it's immoral because the dog was very valuable to my neighbour; not because the dog's life was valuable to me, but because my neighbour's sentiments for his dog should be valuable to me. Mind you, I'm saying this in a hypothetical moral state for me because, since I've been raised in a society that appreciates dogs, I can't help but feel horrible about killing one. That feels morally incoherent to me, though. I know I'm alright with killing chickens. I wouldn't lose any sleep over accidentally killing a chicken so why should I do differently for killing a dog? Sure, there's certain objective differences between killing a dog and a chicken, but there's no real logic towards being selective here. If I were raised in a Chinese culture (I heard somewhere that they eat dogs), then I wouldn't regret killing a dog. Therefore, if I see killing dogs as wrong, I'm effectively calling all Chinese culture inhumane, which I'm rather unwilling to do.

Fine, it could be stray dog and people would still think you are strange for not feeling bad. I'm not saying whether OT is immoral or not. I'm saying most people wouldn't debate with you about the subject (responding to your original point) because they would acids you of being too weird to reason with. You don't have to explain your logic to me, I'm just answering your question and telling you the arguments that people would use -which is probably none at all.