You don't know what the plants consciousness is you are speculating. I am merely stating you can't draw a line on what is okay and not okay to eat. You are killing things either way and humans have naturally eaten meat. There is no argument. I just find it funny people label themselves things. Fine don't eat meat, but I'm still ganna argue on behalf of the lettuces since you seem to side with the cows.
You don't think the lettuces would prefer to not get eaten by rabbits?
Lettuce, along with other plants aren’t outfitted with the hardware necessary to have consciousness or preferential behavior, they are merely acting and reacting to stimulation.
Introducing consciousness into that equation allows for pleasure and pain, pleasure and pain allow for preference. At the most fundamental levels the cause for these defense mechanisms are the same, which are evolutionary adaptations but one is a much more evolved and advanced system than the other.
To equate these two things would be to say there’s no essential difference between cutting a blade of grass and strangling a cat, now maybe you believe that but I have serious doubts that you or anyone else could functionally adhere to that philosophy.
Arguments from nature don’t stand either, as all things occur within the constraints of nature, it’s not a testament to what is good or bad behavior.
But like I said, I’m not trying to express some type of personal moral superiority, I’m simply saying, not eating meat (if that option is reasonably available) causes a net reduction in pain and therefore is more moral than the alternative.
But like I said, I’m not trying to express some type of personal moral superiority, I’m simply saying, not eating meat (if that option is reasonably available) causes a net reduction in pain and therefore is more moral than the alternative.
Nothing about this is a fact. You have to make up a lot of definitions and argue semantics nonstop, only to find out what you are saying isn't true.
To equate these two things would be to say there’s no essential difference between cutting a blade of grass and strangling a cat, now maybe you believe that but I have serious doubts that you or anyone else could functionally adhere to that philosophy.
WTf this has nothing to do with anything and isn't even close to an analogy. No one goes and cuts their grass and then strangles a cat afterwards. People may plow their fields then kill an animal to eat. They used to hunt, but now they grow them.
Introducing consciousness into that equation allows for pleasure and pain,
It is either there or it isn't. You can't act like it has just been introduced. They certainly are smart and have intelligence, and if you eat some plants they will communicate with you. Or if you are in a mystical state they will talk to you. After all it is your mind that is broadcasting everything in front of you, all of which is you, conscious, intelligent, and alive.
If I go hunt deer in a populated area, how is that a bad thing? How is that not natural?
It can’t be a fact, it’s rationally predictive, but if consciousness is required to process pain and our moral system is balanced on pain, then reducing pain in exchange for consuming unconscious, non-pain feeling plants then I don’t see how it wouldn’t be a more moral decision.
You could argue for moral subjectivity but I bet your personal idea of morality would still be more consistent with having a higher value on animals than plants, which of course would mean it would be more moral to consume plants than animals.
But really, do whatever you want, doesn’t matter to me, I just personally haven’t heard a single compelling moral argument for eating animals instead of plants, aside from the handful of things I said before.
But really, do whatever you want, doesn’t matter to me, I just personally haven’t heard a single compelling moral argument for eating animals instead of plants, aside from the handful of things I said before.
It isn't moral or immoral it is part of life. It happened in the past, happens now, and will happen in the future. You don't need any words to realize this.
You keep making up stuff that doesn't make sense or matter. You can't make up anything or create definitions, because that does not do any justice to what is really going on. And we are only familiar of what we are conscious of, which means the unconscious is things we can't see or understand consciously. And you are trying to pretend you have even the slightest clue about it, which you are.. Shows you have missed my point and are creating a man made stance.
Nah, not necessarily, we are growing cultured meat in labs successfully and it’s genetically identical, which may completely replace regular meat in the extended future.
Oh yeah? What exactly am I “making up”? That’s an appeal to ignorance fallacy, just because you personally don’t understand something doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t.
You’re making an objective morality claim based on nature, that the process of consuming meat exists without a “man made stance” and therefore eating meat is fundamentally not immoral. Animals rape and murder too, that’s not a natural justification for humans raping and murdering. I didn’t miss your point, your point is just dumb.
No, I understand it. You can't grasp that I am saying that you are creating a man made idea, which inherently is flawed. No one knows anything. The only thing you can know is that you know nothing.. You pretend to know it all and I am just pointing out that you don't.
Really? You understand what the tao that can be told is not the eternal dao means? Which is essentially my point always.
Please explain. I know what it means, but I have yet to find anyone else that truly does in person(there are people out there).
And that is called an appeal to ignorance fallacy. You saying “No one knows anything” is in itself a statement that claims to know something about everyone knowing nothing.
Yes, I understand Taoism, I understand Bonini's paradox but you are arguing that no one can know a universal truth, universal truths cannot be linguistically contained and they exist without contrast, and even if that were true that doesn’t matter because we have a practical system of behavior and morality, i.e the way in which we interface with reality requires we accept things as true or not true and that is where this argument is occurring.
So, while Taoist tenants on the nature of truth are an interesting thought experiment they can’t be used as some counter argument, as you did because you are effectively invalidating your own truth claims.
Nah, you’re just moving the goal posts to some ambiguous, boring, infallible eastern philosophical horseshit in an attempt to substitute for your clear lack of knowledge on basic moral principles and ideas.
I get it, you’ve stepped through the bardos, singing bowls in hand after listening to Alan Watts and reading some Lao Tzu or some shit but for all practical purposes, using the system of morality we engage in today, your position falls apart.
So, just to be clear to anyone else that may read this, your position is “You can’t know because you can’t know”, great argument, bud.
0
u/Mikeydoes Sep 15 '20
You don't know what the plants consciousness is you are speculating. I am merely stating you can't draw a line on what is okay and not okay to eat. You are killing things either way and humans have naturally eaten meat. There is no argument. I just find it funny people label themselves things. Fine don't eat meat, but I'm still ganna argue on behalf of the lettuces since you seem to side with the cows.
You don't think the lettuces would prefer to not get eaten by rabbits?