The Ethics of Eating "Happy Meat"

[albertus_magnus]

If I claim that I exist, do I have the burden of proof, or am I entitled to assume I exist unless there’s compelling reason to think otherwise? Also, there’s no point in proving a claim that you already agree with. Do you **disagree **with the principle of unnecessary suffering?

Yes. Yes.

There was no need for a reductio ad absurdum, though. Moral nihilists exists. People who disagree with the principle of unnecessary suffering exist. You shouldn’t just assert something as an objective moral truth without any sort of substantiation.

 

[spencelo]

Yes. Yes.

There was no need for a reductio ad absurdum, though. Moral nihilists exists. People who disagree with the principle of unnecessary suffering exist. You shouldn’t just assert something as an objective moral truth without any sort of substantiation.

Are you a moral nihilist then? And just to be clear: you reject the principle of unnecessary suffering?

 

[albertus_magnus]

Are you a moral nihilist then? And just to be clear: you reject the principle of unnecessary suffering?

Maybe, but that’s not relevant. And yes.

 

[spencelo]

Maybe, but that’s not relevant. And yes.

Since you reject the principle of unnecessary suffering, then you’re pretty much a moral nihilist, as far as I can tell. In that case, this isn’t the place to convince you of a basic moral principle that the vast majority of people accept, including Catholics.

 

[albertus_magnus]

Since you reject the principle of unnecessary suffering, then you’re pretty much a moral nihilist, as far as I can tell. In that case, this isn’t the place to convince you of a basic moral principle that the vast majority of people accept, including Catholics.

Catholics also accept eating meat. Is this a concession that you can’t prove the morality or immorality of this?

 

[spencelo]

Catholics also accept eating meat. Is this a concession that you can’t prove the morality or immorality of this?

Not at all. Catholics who eat meat and accept the principle of unnecessary suffering are inconsistent. Or perhaps, since I’m assuming that inconsistency is rationally problematic, you would require me to prove that too.

 

[albertus_magnus]

Not at all. Catholics who eat meat and accept the principle of unnecessary suffering are inconsistent. Or perhaps, since I’m assuming that inconsistency is rationally problematic, you would require me to prove that too.

This does not respond to my question about your ability to prove the morality/immorality of eating meat.

 

[spencelo]

This does not respond to my question about your ability to prove the morality/immorality of eating meat.

But it does. Again, Catholics who accept the principle of unnecessary suffering are acting inconsistently if they eat meat. If I can show the inconsistency, then it follows that I’ve proven why eating meat is wrong.

 

[albertus_magnus]

But it does. Again, Catholics who accept the principle of unnecessary suffering are acting inconsistently if they eat meat. If I can show the inconsistency, then it follows that I’ve proven why eating meat is wrong.

Hypothetical Scenario:

I help the poor.
I believe the poor should not be given help.

I’m being inconsistent, therefore it follows that giving help to poor people is wrong.

 

[spencelo]

Hypothetical Scenario:

I help the poor.
I believe the poor should not be given help.

I’m being inconsistent, therefore it follows that giving help to poor people is wrong.

That doesn’t follow. Anyway, it doesn’t appear you take morality seriously, so I’ll take my leave.

 

[albertus_magnus]

That doesn’t follow. Anyway, it doesn’t appear you take morality seriously, so I’ll take my leave.

What you wrote:

“But it does. Again, Catholics who accept the principle of unnecessary suffering are acting inconsistently if they eat meat. If I can show the inconsistency, then it follows that I’ve proven why eating meat is wrong.”

Your argument:
Catholics accept the principle of unnecessary suffering.
Catholics eat meat (which causes unnecessary suffering)

This is inconsistent, therefore eating meat is wrong.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow either.

 

[spencelo]

What you wrote:

“But it does. Again, Catholics who accept the principle of unnecessary suffering are acting inconsistently if they eat meat. If I can show the inconsistency, then it follows that I’ve proven why eating meat is wrong.”

Your argument:
Catholics accept the principle of unnecessary suffering.
Catholics eat meat (which causes unnecessary suffering)

This is inconsistent, therefore eating meat is wrong.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow either.

I assumed in what I wrote that the principle of unnecessary suffering is true, so my conclusion does follow. But again, that doesn’t appeal to you because you refuse to take morality seriously, apparently.

 

[albertus_magnus]

I assumed in what I wrote that the principle of unnecessary suffering is true, so my conclusion does follow. But again, that doesn’t appeal to you because you refuse to take morality seriously, apparently.

Your problem is bolded.

Seeing as you obviously can’t prove that it is immoral, you should have just said so.

 

[spencelo]

Your problem is bolded.

Seeing as you obviously can’t prove that it is immoral, you should have just said so.

I deny that I have the burden of proof here. If I were to take your standard seriously, then prove to me why I have the burden of proof. You wrote: If you make a claim, you must prove it.

Okay, you made the claim that if you make a claim, then you must prove it, so prove that claim. Can you? Hmmm…I suppose you should then admit that you can’t prove your own standard.

 

[albertus_magnus]

I deny that I have the burden of proof here. If I were to take your standard seriously, then prove to me why I have the burden of proof. You wrote: If you make a claim, you must prove it.

Okay, you made the claim that if you make a claim, then you must prove it, so prove that claim. Can you? Hmmm…I suppose you should then admit that you can’t prove your own standard.

I can’t prove my own standard, so I’m not internally consistent. I don’t value internal consistency, though.

If you can just deny that you have the burden of proof, I’ll just assert that if you make a claim, you should prove it, and deny that I have to burden of proof to show it.

 

[spencelo]

I can’t prove my own standard, so I’m not internally consistent. I don’t value internal consistency, though.

If you can just deny that you have the burden of proof, I’ll just assert that if you make a claim, you should prove it, and deny that I have to burden of proof to show it.

Sure, you can assert that all you want, though I have no reason to take you or your double-standard seriously.

 

[albertus_magnus]

Sure, you can assert that all you want, though I have no reason to take you or your double-standard seriously.

…you still haven’t shown how eating meat is immoral.

 

[spencelo]

…you still haven’t shown how eating meat is immoral.

You still haven’t shown why I need prove the principle from which it follows that eating meat is immoral.

 

[albertus_magnus]

You still haven’t shown why I need prove the principle from which it follows that eating meat is immoral.

You still haven’t shown why I need to prove that you need to prove the principle from which it follows that eating meat is immoral

But really, you don’t “need” to prove the principle, but it is unlikely that you will be taken seriously if you don’t.

Similarly, I don’t “need” to prove that you need to prove the principle, but you’re probably not taking me seriously.

Presumably, you care about the morality of eating meat, otherwise it is unlikely you would have made a thread about it. Being taken seriously is therefore more likely to be of value to you than it is to me.

Of course, you don’t have to. I’m merely stating that you haven’t, which you haven’t. I know I haven’t proved anything, and I’m fine with that. You’ve claimed that you did prove something, which you obviously didn’t.

 

[spencelo]

But really, you don’t “need” to prove the principle, but it is unlikely that you will be taken seriously if you don’t.

Not taken seriously by whom? By people who reject the principle? I wonder how many of them exist.

You’ve claimed that you did prove something, which you obviously didn’t.

What is it do you think I claimed, and where do you think I claimed this in this thread?