Using consciousness as a measure doesn't seem acceptable to me, though. I mean, are humans in a coma immediately renderred worthless? One of the most important general rules of morality in practically all cultures is that human lives are (immensely) valuable. Of course, many will still disagree, but this is probably as close to an objective moral as we're going to get. Therefore, I'd say that any moral theory should have to be able to meet the requirement of never contradicting this statement in order to be acceptable.

Anyway, I think I have a decent enough idea of your view on this subject now. We needn't continue this debate since it's only going to circle back to the same points now as far as I can tell.

Always fun having ethical and philosophical arguments with you, :D.

It doesn't matter if I think killing in this situation is right or wrong. People will draw their own conclusions and base their opinion on one thing or another. It's subjective in the sense that there are arguments for both sides and everyone will decide differently on the matter. The only thing that would change from person to person are the views. However, the actual action is either right or wrong.

Lets turn back the clock to before Galileo. Now, I can say the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. I could provide some reasoning to why I believe this. Now, people can refute this and provide reasoning for their beliefs. One side of this is obviously right. The earth can not be both flat and round at the same time. This is what I am saying. An action can not be right and wrong at the same time. But just like people before Galileo we have no way of knowing which is true before investigation and unfortunatly for us in this particular situation even after investigating we can't say with certainty who is correct.

I understand what you're trying to say. 

But morality is a human-created concept. Truth/fase exists regardless of if humans determine if something's true or false. On the other hand, humans are required to say what's moral or immoral. So if no human can prove that X is objectively right/wrong, then X is not objectively wrong, and thus it is subjective.

For example, if a population is split on the morality of X, how is it possible for X to be objectively moral or immoral? Imagine a group of 100 people. 50 people believe X is moral; 50 people believe X is immoral. They've discussed the morality of X for years, yet their opinions have not changed. They've heard every possible argument possible. According to you, one of the groups is right and the other is wrong. But on what basis can you say one is right and one is wrong? All you would be doing is giving your own opinion and there would be no way to prove that your opinion is correct. 

In this case, no human can prove X is objectively right/wrong. So the morality of the situation is completely subjective. 

If it's completely subjective then there is no point in even discussing such matters. But I believe there is reason to discuss the topic.

And logically speaking the statements eating meat is morally wrong and eating meat isnt morally wrong are contradictions. Make a truth table and you will see this. Therefor when one is true the other is false... meaning they can not be true at the same time. So, I can weigh in my opinion and what I think is correct but I can not say with absolute that I am correct.

You use a 50/50 argument... This makes it seem to me that you hold the social constructivist theory. Which is what is real/true is determined by society... which is an entirely flawed theory

"Do you know what they do to the those chickens!?"

"No, but its delicious"


- Jim Gaffigan

Sorry for the late reply, was quite busy. I'd say that I'm a political vegetarian, as my first motivations were related to bull-fighting tradition in my country. But, the thing is that, it wasn't just because of trying to stand against something, I think that the main reason is "why not?". There are many "facts" that explain the importance of meat, but, as soon as you start looking for them you'll find alternatives, and these are not that extreme one would've though (unless you are going vegan).

Human beings are capable of doing things beyond their natural instincts, and that, among other things, makes us awesome :). I didn't really liked chicken nor fish, but I loved beef. But then you start questioning your own consumption patterns. I realised that I could make a change, it was mine, I didn't need to convert anybody, was just my way of feeling good.

I've been vegetarian for more then 5 years, and I've only find more reasons to keep doing it. Now, it's not only a stand against animal mistreatment (including bull-fighting), apparently it's also good for your health, which is not really that relevant for me, and producing meat is very inefficient (amount of food and water required to produce meat) and unsustainable (mainly beef cattle).

Additionally, being vegetarian pushed me to learn how to cook :), and I not that bad. You also discover new things, different dishes, that you probably would've missed if you weren't looking for alternatives.

I you have any question, just let me know.

Thanks for replying :)

It does. Just look at the relative levels of lactose intolerance in the world and compare it to the advent of agriculture (specifically, the raising of milk producing livestock). People who are descended from civilisations that drank a lot of milk (well into adult life) are far less likely to suffer from lactose intolerance. As we're talking about civilisation, that's only approx. 5000 years ago.

Hunting tools and fire were well before that so our dietary tolerance is likely to have changed greatly since then.

I also think this is all relevant to the moral aspect. I think there are certain things that need to be accepted as natural and instinctial. The eating of meat in moderation is part of a natural and healthy lifestyle.

The morals I see; it comes down to really the animals life. And actually not the actual thing it produces. If we created synthetic meat. This argument wouldn't be happening then?