Yes, thank you. We all do things that directly or indirectly cause/support unfortunate activities in this world, and we all have different standards as to which of those are acceptable or, at least, can afford to be given mental “space” in your thoughts. These can change over the course of your life.
The whole idea of whether an action is “ethical” or “unethical” is arbitrary and random. It’s just people trying to dress up their own opinion as a universal objective truth.
You’ve illustrated it yourself in this very thread–some people say it’s unethical to eat meat, and you disagree.
You can believe this if you want, but it’s immaterial to my poll since it’s possible to ask questions about individual consistency of an ethos without having to argue about its validity.
You’d call yourself a moral universalist, or a moral absolutist (I can’t tell which from the information in your post). To illustrate the concept of moral relativism, consider the topic of this thread. I’m sure some who voted think it’s flat-out wrong to kill an animal, period. But what about subsistence hunters living north of the Arctic Circle 200 years ago? They sure as hell weren’t going to live off of plant life. When confronted with this, most would probably concede that in that circumstance, it’s not wrong to kill an animal. This is an extreme example but it illustrates the point; cultural and practical considerations have an effect on the morality of decisions.
Of course, that’s all assuming there is such a thing as “morality.” 
That’s why I confined my poll specifically to the consumption of factory farm meat for pleasure. I’m trying to remove contextual issues from the equation and confine it to the crux of what vegetarians ethically object to.
I wasn’t saying anything about your poll. I was responding to the post I quoted.
Ditto. By confining your poll to very narrow circumstances, you’ve implicitly shown that you understand the concept of moral relativism. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t see any need to define your terms so narrowly. Clearly there ARE shades of gray in ethics, granted they’re usually more subtle than the simple scenario I suggested but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there or that there is no room for them in your question.
That’s not what moral relativism means.
I certainly understand what you mean. It does seem a bit odd to choose not to eat meat (at least, factory-farmed meat) because you think it’s wrong and then only apply that standard to yourself. Moral relativism and so on are irrelevant - I mean, the reasons you’re (generic you) choosing not to eat that meat are not just down to personal preference.
For example, I wouldn’t choose to eat factory-farmed meat because I think it’s wrong. I choose not to eat meat in general (except shellfish) because I don’t like it enough and get squicked out by the thought of eating a formerly sentient being. The first is based on morals, the second is a purely personal choice.
I recognise that other people have different morals, but you were asking about what I and other vegetarians think of other people’s choices, and it’s a perfectly valid question to ask.
It’s interesting that mostly the answers you’ve got are the same as mine - yeah, I think choosing to eat factory-farmed meat is pretty much wrong, but I’m not perfect either and it’s not worth fighting about.
admiringly Animal-eaters could make quite the case for ‘Long Pig’ if pressed hard enough…
That’s not moral relativism as I understand it. Moral relativism is, basically, saying that ‘this standard applies to this group of people, but not this group.’
Your example is different - I’d totally apply different criteria to people in a situation where they had no choice but to eat meat or die, but that’s because of the situation, not the people.
Obviously there are shades of grey in ethics and morality. I’m not sure that there’s any need to point out such a truism.
The distinction you make between a personal preference and a moral stance is a distinction without a difference–someone who says “Doing [whatever] is immoral” are simply expressing their personal preference (albeit using “morality language”).
I disagree. There’s a difference between choosing not to do something because you think it’s wrong (to a given level of ‘wrong’) and not doing something because you find it icky. I don’t think eating aubergines is wrong, but I choose not to eat them because I find the taste disgusting.
But then, given your username, I’d say we probably have markedly different outlooks on life.
You are correct that your morals express a preference. But one can express a preference without making moral judgments about others.
I don’t have sex with men because i don’t find men sexually attractive, and because the idea of having sex with a man is a turn-off for me. I have no problem (moral or otherwise) with other men having sex with men. Those two things are not the same, and there is also no contradiction (moral or otherwise) there.
The objective validty of ethical standards are not germane to whether it is possible to examine the internal consistency of those standards in a given individual.
Sure I believe it is always unethical, but to isn’t so black and white. You might have a spectrum from eating foie gras and veal to being stranded in the wildrness and eating squirrels to sIurvive.
People are conditioned to eat meat in this society. It is completely morally acceptable by the vast majority. It is really hard to pass judgement on such conditioned people.
As a society we practically worship our fore fathers who were SLAVE OWNERS. I don’t think that the 1st chapter of American history should be titled Wicked Racists… although it wouldn’t be far ao the mark.
You two are just discussing the difference between self-focused moral statements and other-focused moral statements–but they both simply express personal preferences. For example, if someone says “Men having sex with men is immoral,” all they are saying is “I don’t like it when men have sex with other men,” which is just a personal preference (albeit about the actions of others, not oneself).
Also scifisam, not sure why you think my username is relevant here–if you knew anything about Ayn Rand you’d know that this is a point that I absolutely disagree with her on (i.e., our views are diametrically opposed).
In the same way that lion’s are conditioned to eat meat in their societies?
Not at all.
In the same way that cows are conditioned to eat grass in their societies?