Well, in all fairness, when you're speaking philosophically, they're kind of right. If you divorce emotions from your thinking and consider that morals are dependent on the values of the social group you live and act in, then there really isn't anything necessarily right or wrong.
Of course, I find this ridiculous. I agree that it's incredibly frustrating to be confronted with this line of thinking (which my SO trots out pretty much every time I go on a vegan rant). Most people, I've found tend to argue along this line when they're either a) feeling guilty about something they do that they aren't morally comfortable with or b) philosophy nerds.
I make a strong attempt to love all animals, including people. Even the ones that don't always deserve it.
uh oh - you're a relativist too. Relativism has never been proven to be philosophically correct. Neither, I suppose, has believing in absolute rights and wrongs.
But if you think about the kinds of maxims that social systems base their equations of right and wrong on they are basing them on something - they're not just coming up with them out of thin air or only consulting selfish desires. To me, this seems to suggest that yes, there are rights and wrongs. Larger abstract concepts and universal maxims - like "do unto others as you would have done unto you" that societies as well as individuals consult when deciding what is right or wrong.
I'd say more, but I've already spent a long time discussing this on my own journal.
People have the right to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they can DO whatever they want. Unfortunately, many people don't make a distinction between the two.
Many personal beliefs are harmless. Hurting animals isn't one of them. This isn't a "personal choice" like spirituality/religion is. Yes it is a choice - but it ceases to be "personal" as soon as you start harming others.
If they can genuinely believe whatever they want then they can genuinely do whatever they want. You can't expect someone to have a belief and not follow up on it. Thats just not the way the human robot works. That will only cause more disfunction.
...I've been up for too long, so this probably does not make sense. On the off chance that it does, enjoy.
I hung out with a postmodernist in Sierra Leone. He loved vegan food and some vegan ethics, but ate meat to prove he had the right to. Not sure if that bit was genuine, as he openly admitted to talking a lot of bullshit. I still respect and love the guy to death too, but I had to convince him to not buy ivory from a guy at a market. Really
( ... )
Um ... just because Hitler thought slaughtering billions of people was a great idea doesn't mean it was. That's just someone talking stupid to make themselves feel 'admirable' for doing what they think is right.
So is she saying Hannibal Lector was 'admirable' as well, because he thought eating and wearing people was a great idea? If so, let's all just eat and wear each other. Sounds like a marvelous idea to me. Plus, it will save the animals a whole lot of pain and suffering.
Comments 28
Of course, I find this ridiculous. I agree that it's incredibly frustrating to be confronted with this line of thinking (which my SO trots out pretty much every time I go on a vegan rant). Most people, I've found tend to argue along this line when they're either a) feeling guilty about something they do that they aren't morally comfortable with or b) philosophy nerds.
I make a strong attempt to love all animals, including people. Even the ones that don't always deserve it.
*hugs*
Reply
But if you think about the kinds of maxims that social systems base their equations of right and wrong on they are basing them on something - they're not just coming up with them out of thin air or only consulting selfish desires. To me, this seems to suggest that yes, there are rights and wrongs. Larger abstract concepts and universal maxims - like "do unto others as you would have done unto you" that societies as well as individuals consult when deciding what is right or wrong.
I'd say more, but I've already spent a long time discussing this on my own journal.
Reply
Do you mind if I add you? I'm always on the look out for vegan friends of the philosophical inclination. I'd love to read more.
It's refreshing to see something in this community which goes into greater depth on ethics than the standard "vegan = good, not vegan = bad".
=)
Reply
Reply
Many personal beliefs are harmless. Hurting animals isn't one of them. This isn't a "personal choice" like spirituality/religion is. Yes it is a choice - but it ceases to be "personal" as soon as you start harming others.
Reply
Thats just not the way the human robot works. That will only cause more disfunction.
Reply
Are you saying we should police peoples' thoughts - not their actions?
I just don't see where you're coming from.
Reply
I hung out with a postmodernist in Sierra Leone. He loved vegan food and some vegan ethics, but ate meat to prove he had the right to. Not sure if that bit was genuine, as he openly admitted to talking a lot of bullshit. I still respect and love the guy to death too, but I had to convince him to not buy ivory from a guy at a market. Really ( ... )
Reply
to me shit really isn't that deep or complicated. its pretty simple and straight forward.
Reply
So is she saying Hannibal Lector was 'admirable' as well, because he thought eating and wearing people was a great idea? If so, let's all just eat and wear each other. Sounds like a marvelous idea to me. Plus, it will save the animals a whole lot of pain and suffering.
Reply
Leave a comment