Slavery was, and still is, by some people, considered to be an acceptable practice. Does/did that make it moral?
I went vegetarian 30 years ago. It wasn’t easy back then. I think the only decent fake meat was Morningstar Farms breakfast sausages. Some restaurant menus had no vegetarian options. I ate a lot of pasta and rice dishes. That said, I always found dishes that tasted good, and that I looked forward to.
And Gardenburger; they’ve been around since the early '80s.
I rember the original Gardenburger. It was green, and I liked them, but not at all meat-like.
By some people? Where is slavery openly practiced? As I understand it, modern slavery exists undercover, acknowledged as a moral wrong, but practiced anyway, black market style.
So let’s review where we are with this particular argument.
Eating meat is OK, because humans are predators. And even if some people might think being a predator is wrong, well, the majority of people think it’s fine, so it’s fine. Just like how when most (non-slave) people thought slavery was OK, it was OK. But it’s wrong now for most people.
QED
It sounds like morality determined by the majority.
My view on that is that since we’ve disturbed the natural ecosystems in many areas by eliminating predators it’s now on us to cull the herds, and if we’re going to cull the animals then we might as well eat them rather than let them go to waste. Either that, or the suburbanites can shut up about it when hordes of deer first eat their expensive landscaping then, when that’s gone, start dropping dead of starvation in massive numbers. In between being hit by vehicles, of course.
This will, of course, vary by location.
Yup. That’s about the size of it.
Morality is nothing more than personal opinion. That’s why you can only legislate it by majority vote, or society, if you will.
Once again, at no point have I talked about “legislating” morality; I’ve explicitly said, at least 3 times now, that I’m specifically talking about how people justify eating meat to themselves.
Which is what you’ve tried to do with arguments like “killing to eat is natural” and “Society has not decreed killing animals for meat a moral wrong. Therefore […] eating meat is not wrong”. They aren’t very good arguments, indeed they are both named fallacies, and almost certainly not principles that anyone would apply consistently.
Like it or not, you’re giving a good example of the kind of internal conflict I was talking about.
Named fallacies according to whom?
A fallacy is incorrect. Show me where anything I’ve posted here is incorrect.
How could society have morality that was not determined by the majority?
Vegetarian is a fine choice, although Vegan can have issues.
Take a b12 supplement, and a multivite, and you should be fine.
The first, as already pointed out, is the Naturalistic Fallacy.
The second, I was thinking of the argumentum ad populum but in fairness depending on the exact formulation it could instead be simply ethical relativism. Which is not actually a fallacy, just a largely refuted philosophy (you alluded to some of the problems with this philosophy yourself).
You still haven’t pointed out where I’m incorrect. Why is this so called Naturalistic Fallacy false?
Is this a joke? Is there a Christmas tradition of joking that I am unfamiliar with?
You yourself just stated that fallacies are false in your previous post. Now you’re saying “ok it’s a fallacy, why’s that false?” WTH
And further, in answer to your question, the first time I mentioned the Naturalistic fallacy I explained the problems with it. I explained, for example, that if we’re defining “good” as natural, then that would make sexual activity between an adult man and pubescent girls “good” and basic hygiene “bad”.
We can keep going if you want more examples.
Good idea. A cull and a nice big barbecue lasting a couple of years. But there’s no need to perpetuate it after that.
Natural doesn’t mean good. Natural is neutral. We as a society have decided that pedophilia is wrong, even if it’s natural. We have not as a society decided that meat eating is wrong.
Your personal opinion is that meat eating is wrong. If you and those who also hold that opinion can convince the mainstream population that meat eating is wrong, perhaps meat eating would become shameful or even illegal. That’s how society’s positions on morality change over time.
By the way, I didn’t say, “Okay, it’s a fallacy.” I said “a so called fallacy.”. I don’t think it’s a fallacy at all. Show me where it’s false.
So immediately here the argument has lost all coherency, as you are acknowledging here that “natural” acts could indeed be considered wrong (by *your* standards). So “natural” in itself doesn’t connote anything about morality.
This is the fourth, maybe the fifth time I’ve said this: I am not trying to tell anyone meat eating is wrong or right.
All I’m doing at this point, is sitting back with some popcorn, watching you have a fight with your own brain.
You don’t think that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy? So you think it is rational to conclude that being “natural” logically entails something is good, or at least not evil?
But wait, what about you just now agreeing about pedophilia? This is painful.
I don’t see where I have been incoherent. Nature has nothing to do with morality. Humans being omnivorous has nothing to do with morality.
As human individuals, we act according to our own perceptions and drives, and from these two natural biological functions, we form personal opinions about good and bad. That’s personal morality at an individual level.
As humanity developed into civilizations, maintaining order among the populations required a collective morality that most could agree to adhere to. Thus, shared personal opinions about what was acceptable behavior vs what was taboo was gradually codified into laws.
And somewhere along the line, pedophilia became wrong. For us anyway. In ancient Greece, there was a different opinion…