/lit/ - Literature

>>10933848

Only in the presence of alternatives

>>10933848
No, it's fine because God said so. End of discussion.

>>10933852
get the fuck out atheist

>>10933848
idk

>>10933848
The human existence is higher than the animals. Killing animals to further himans is actually a moral positive

>>10933886

God also said slavery was permissible, among other things.

>>10933848
No, it's only immoral to make them suffer.

Death never hurt anyone.

>>10933899
Yes, and?

>>10933913

An immoral God is not worth worshiping or obeying.

>>10933848
dure

No, it’s only immoral to kill innocent human beings because morality evolved to preserve our own species

I don't know, but /his/posting sure is

>>10933848
No, hunting is the highest of congresses with Nature. You're making contact with the human oversoul when you kill your own food. This is nothing like what rednecks and frat dads do when they're bored either. I mean hunting for days, going out alone, or in a party of maybe 3-4 men, you all bring limited supplies, and you need to return with bounty or your family will suffer, your wife or prospects will stray from you, your children will be malnourished. Really nothing else could compare to the thrill of downing a proud elk, or a wild pheasant or turkey, knowing you've made others proud, that you're a healthy, skillful, sapient, dominant life form. Perfect.

>>10933915
anything god says is moral amigo, you're just a resentful pleb that probably would have been in righteous slavery back in the day.

>>10933921
naturalistic fallacy
and also wrong. our morals substantially change with time and are not exclusive for species survival

>>10933918
*sure

>>10933915
Immoral to you, idolator

>>10933925
t. mentally 15 year old afraid of touching spiders

>>10933946
god why does christianity only have these cringey boasters anymore?

>>10933848
Animals are lesser beings, thus any harms done to them are inconsequential

>>10933942
Moral principles are a priori for the individual but a posteriori for the species and their end goal is survival.

>>10933938
>>10933946

If God didn't want me to use reason, he shouldn't have given it to me.

>>10933848
Yes, but it isn't if it is a hot bitch eating my meat

>>10933915
>he hasn't read Kierkegaard

>>10933961
you have no clue what you're talking about, climb back in your jar

>>10933899
typical chocolateposter

>>10933915
>the christian god is incompatible with my 21st century white western sensibilities and therefore immoral

>>10933961
>le big boy words give my bs credibility

>>10933977

> Defending God using moral relativism

>>10933977
Wel yeah. He literally admitted that himself.
Too bad you larpers don't care about facts.
Deus vult am i right? xdd

>>10933925
you'd better be hunting with a spear for this level of pretentiousness

>>10933848
>Evidence for Meat-Eating by Early Humans | The first major evolutionary change in the human diet was the incorporation of meat and marrow from large animals, which occurred by at least 2.6 million years ago
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273

>>10933966
>>10933979
Not an argument.

>>10933988
>ignores the argument to show off hos 8th grade tier knowledge he's proud off
Your father never praised you as a child. Also you're an overcompensating idiot. Eating meat won't make you lose your virginity

>>10933993
Correct. You only made a claim.

>>10933993
neither was your post, so i guess that solves it peanut

>>10933962
Man you got it figured out don't you, bud?

Go watch Hulu and get off M Y board.

>>10934011

Not an argument

>>10934013
Reee

>>10934028

Not an argument

>>10933848
Who cares?

>>10934031
>>10934013
>>10933993

>>10933848
That depends on your morals, obviously. Morality is contingent and derives from rough group agreements. Moral absolutism is idiotic nonsense.

>>10934031
Here's your argument >>10933965
Make a leap of faith or don't, you're either under-read or trolling. Idc

>>10934076
If it comes from group agreements then the current agreement is that it’s not wrong.

>>10934084

My leap of faith is that my moral sensibilities are correct and compatible with God. A leap of faith doesn't have to give primacy to the Bible.

>>10934091
Exactly, depending on the animals. Cats and dogs are currently not considered acceptable food in my society. There's nothing logical of inherently moral about that, it's just the custom and tradition. A vocal minority, of course, always disagree with any social norms (which, to be fair, is how social morals, customs, and laws eventually change).

>>10933848
of course it is. the question is should you care?

>>10934132
So they technically are in the wrong utile they actually change it?

>>10934145
No. Morality is still a personal choice at all times. Just because other people, or even all of society, has judged an act immoral doesn't mean you have to agree. The group morality claims that walking around nude is somehow immoral, but that's nonsensical to me, so I reject it. That doesn't change the general consensus, but it should highlight the problem with confusing customs and morals.

>>10933848
Pussy ass nigger. Go kill a plant instead you dumb fuck

It's immoral not to eat meat. Despite our fixation on the idea that humans are "above" the food chain, if we opted out of eating meat and stopped conservation efforts like hunting, we'd disrupt ecological systems that go back millions of years through the lineage of early man and hominids which depends on omnivorous diets for stability. That'd incur unchecked population hikes, mass extinctions, and general ecological chaos upon the world, and overall fuck shit up way worse than where we are now. That said, the mass production meat industry is also fucked up and unsustainable.

let's ask him

>muh tradition
>muh humanism
>muh religion

/lit/ really showing off the debate skills

>>10934161
I don’t fully get it... is it a societal agreement or is it a “moral sentiment”?

>>10933986
a bow and an stone axe friend, a bronze dagger
>>10933948
I save all the spiders in my apt and carry them down to the courtyard in my building to free them

Not unless you believe it

>>10933848
Is it immoral to enjoy the fruit of corporate wageslave labor? What about the poor little mexicans and niggers who pick vegetables on their hands and knees all day just so you can virtue signal at work when you whip out organic produce in the break room? Is wantonly torturing conscious beings wrong? Probably. If suffering is necessary to maintain your current lifestyle which to detract from would entail suffering for you, is it reasonable to continue what you're doing or is every moment of continuation of this railroad of hardship an affront to your better nature?

>>10933848

nope, its necessary

>>10933848
Well, humans are animals. Is it immoral to kill and eat them? If you answered yes then there's your answer.

>>10934320
>pretending not to understand what he means by animals

>God
spooky

>>10933848
>immoral

>>10933848
No, since morality only applies to humans

>>10933899
god didnt say what slavery entailed, there are many humane ways to enact slavery its just that the lowlife's love to be brutal as a coping mechanism, slavery will return when the spiritually weak are no more

>>10933848
Most animals convert plant based organic matter such as grass and flowers and sprouts into workable proteins, which you can only do with a limited quantity of vegetation. This vegetation which animals subsist on has done the job of converting soil and sun into workable proteins, something humans can't do. Animals eating vegetarian animals are extracting proteins they otherwise cannot make for themselves, the former eventually develops a dependency on the latter, which is natural.

Morality would be better directed in questioning the quantity of animals being consumed, the farming means (feed and containment) used to raise animals, and energy invested into raising animals vs what individuals/communities/society get out of said animals (i.e. is it more energy efficient simply and better for people to primarily milk cows and eat poultry eggs or to invest resources in fattening them to unnatural sizes so as to slaughter them and make available a greater amount of protein in the short/long run? Is the growth as a result of the farming and devouring of animals of benefit outside of the economics of the system?).

>>10934729
>slavery will return when the spiritually weak are no more

Or when the economics demands otherwise no better means of focused labor and energy for a society (to say nothing of everyone's dependency on wage slavery, 3rd world countries, and fossil fuel bearing nations).

No, morality is a human construct and meat is imperative to the human existence

>>10933848
No, even animals eat each other and you'v the evolutive tools to eat and digest them.

>>10933848

Whilst morality is a spook it is quite immoral to kill anything.

>>10933848
is it immoral when animals do it?

>>10934941
Then only plants are moral? And only photosynthesizing plants (no Venus fly-trappers)?

>>10934729

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezekiel 9:4-6)

"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)


you could argue this is only the old testament, which was written by men.. but they claim it is the word of god. so someone's full of shit.

>>10933982
>implying morality can be contradicted by God's morals

>>10934997
animals don't have morals

>>10933848
Believing that killing animals for food is immoral presupposes some form of human exceptionalism

just sayin'

>>10935025
Human's are animals. Therefore, human's have no morals!

>derp!

>>10935018
Why do God's morals vary from Messiah to Messiah?

>>10935039
but humans aren't animals!

>>10935042
Maybe because only one of the Messiahs is the true Messiah

>>10933852
The best answer
Praise be to reason.

>>10935154
of course there are alternatives. so his answer is yes

>>10933848

How about you tell me who the woman in this picture is right fucking now?

>>10935164
I appreciate this very well.
I lack the commitment to change, so I don't, but atleast I accept my wrongdoings.
The day artificial meat is commercially viable will truly be an interesting day for morals.

>>10935232
why is it immoral though? are animals to be treated/have the same rights as people? another thing about his answer - it defends the morality bullfighting, because there's no alternative to a bull

>>10933965
Kierkegaard is the anti-intellectual's intellectual, perfectly befitting his Protestantism.

>>10933848
All life is sacred, is that so hard to understand?

>>10935264
But if we look at the act in general, as entertainment, there is. This is a rather sweeping way to address a problem though, by claiming "perspective," but none the less.
And I suppose that there is as much a reason to give animals good treatment as so called lower class humans, as neither benefits the so called ruling class. Why, ultimately? Probably due to some sort of value I attach to sentience, or life. But ultimately, there is little reason for that. But fuck if that stops me.

>>10935303
bullfighting isn't entertainment.
and my feeling is as human beings, we have a loyalty to humans (your fellow man). and sentimentality or value is something personal.

>>10933894
>human existence is higher than animals
Are you being serious. How could you look at the world today and seriously believe that any of the worthless specimens of the human race are above any of the glorious creatures of the animal kingdom.

>>10935341
Can we not do the same with animals? When I see birds dance with delight, or dogs pander for attention, I cannot help but feel compassion as well. I could understand eating fish though
And also, then what is bullfighting, if not entertainment. Its hardly a necessity, and is in completely a spectator sport. It is as much of a cultural practice as football and that american thing is, and while there can still be argument to keep it for that reason, it doesn't convince me. I look at it like fox-hunting; unnecessary cruelty.

>>10935389
you draw the line at fish. but someone else might be in love with fish, you know. hemingway said he only felt affection for individual animals, based on some quality.

bullfighting's not a sport. it's an art; a tragedy in 3 acts. it's arguably essential to spanish culture, which has a more intimate relationship with death than any culture in the world. but maybe you're right. though fox-hunting is entirely different.

>>10933848

>>10935492
The fish-thing is fair, my view of them being less living then other animals is arguably arbitrary, as I cannot find plausible reason to value how mammals or octopodes perceive life and entertain themselves more important than I do for fish. But ultimately, I would still protect a lamb/cat/caique over a fish anyday, regardless of the lack of concrete reason.
As with bullfighting, I admittedly know very little about what it culturally entails, and only have disdain about it for the more physically necessities of slaughtering a bull. Although, I believe there is merit in asking why we can kill a bull for a culture it neither understands nor wants to partake in. If it were willing to, that'd be a rather different question, just as different the "pig that wants to be eaten would be," atleast in my humble opinion anyway.

>>10934228
>not using a throwing stick and atlatl.
This guy doesn't even hunt.

>>10935492
>>10935528
>It seems as though there were a fundamental cleavage between people on this basis, although people who do not identify themselves with animals may, while not loving animals in general, be capable of great affection for an individual animal, a dog, a cat, or a horse, for instance. But they will base this affection on some quality of, or some association with, this individual animal rather than on the fact that it is an animal and hence worthy of love.”
Was this what you were referring to, btw? Its a fair comment, and a rather damning one at that.
As much as it doesn't make me value the ones I value any less, I see very much the problem in my ad hoc nature in liking animals, and will probs have to consider some more reasonable reason encompasing the reasons I have. Some sort of grouping that distances my preffered animals from fish, and if this grouping doesn't exist, well I guess I shouldn't eat fish.

Depends on the animal, no?


I am pretty sure almost no one civilized wants to eat a baby orangutan.
but at the same time I am pretty sure no one is sad for the death of a tape worm.

>>10935528
would you protect a cat over a human being?

the bull is the hero of the tragedy, it has responsibilities beyond itself. animals, like some people, are born into things.

>>10935578
i bet there are cultures/people that disprove both of those

>>10935574
while you're at it you should watch your step as not to crush any ants

>>10935601
It was never a question of humans being left to suffer, hence the alternatives clause at the very start.
However, whether human enjoyment, especially when it can be replace, is worth lives of a cat per se, then it depends.
Is kicking a cat to death for shits and giggles excusable, in other words?
What I envision is a grouping of empathetic life, which we avoid killing whenever available. This group will be below human life, but not replacable human enjoyment. Admittably, however, this is easier said then done, and is (right now) completely arbitrary in placement.

>>10935619
Well, I avoid walking on grass when I can step on pavement. Might as well, you know?

>>10933848
No, animals do the exact same, and most would mercilessly eat a human being alive. I don't give a shit what crazy vegan Instagram users say.

>>10935634
i was just wondering. hemingway also said animal lovers seen to be more capable of human cruelty.

that's all right, but for the sake of this discussion, it'd be a vision based on your personal feeling, and not morality (this makes you a doctrinaire btw)

>>10933848
Depends are all carnivores demons? If you try saying any one carnivore is evil, you say all are. There are no acceptations.

>>/pol/

Is it immoral to be on a diet of strictly man meat?

>>10935680
exception not acception my bad.

>>10935672
hehe, I also just read that in an article.There was a vegetarian that rejected the "suffer" argument (Christine something?) because it left babies up to being eaten. I'm taking from that branch, as she talked about people holding humans higher than animals despite suffering, like I do. I feel that her idea of us not killing pets for food as they are "pets" has merit, in the sense that we should try to apply some sort of group of respect to animals worthy of it. This distinction between animals and humans is therefore what holds humans strictly above animals, but not beyond moral culpability for harming them.

hmmm

>>10935375
Although it is true that humans are excrement born out of the third hole, we make great fertile soil for various high existences, unlike the animals. Things like music. I do like birds singing, but it is not the same, we as humans hear it that way.

>>10933848
no

>>10934076
I feel sorry for you desu. The whole purpose of human life is to find the good path and to strive towards this good. Enjoy your existential dread and depression.

I'm on nofap you fucking cunt

desu probs senpai

>>10936596
Why do you faggots always feel the need to talk about your nofap? Nobody gives a fuck

Is it immoral to have to have produce that can't be grown in your own country shipped in by flight or freighter because without it you will become deficient from not eating what is available to you locally (such as meat)?

>>10936596
Enjoy prostate cancer

>>10933848
Veganism requires supplementation to get your amino acids and other nutrients in. This is why a lot of vegans look sickly weak. Your body has evolved to consume meat. Giving yourself adequate nourishment isn't immoral.

>>10934797
Good answer.

>>10933915
God cannot be immoral, as what is morality is simply a reflection of God. Acting moral is to act closer to God.

>>10933852
Why? Eating the animal gives it purpose.

>>10933915
Sin is slavery God does not allow.

>>10936667
yikes what the fuck are you talking about

All the philosophy people I've talked to have said that it's pretty much indefensible but I don't really understand why. All their arguments seem to work backwards, insisting that it is necessary to prove that eating meat is moral, which seems nigh impossible.

I don't understand desu.

The animals we eat just seem like automata. It doesn't seem wrong to kill and eat something that is basically incapable of thinking in a way that comes anywhere close to our own. Maybe I misunderstand the argument but I think people say that it's wrong because the animals feel pain and sadness. But how animals experience those feelings is a complete unknown. Their experience of our world isn't something we can hope to understand. For all we know, they could be closer to plants than to us, cognitively. I guess you could say that, just in case they DO experience the world like us, we should err on the side of caution in order to avoid committing a moral violation, but I don't think people care enough

>>10936664
I'm pretty sure the meat thing is a myth desu, there are plenty of healthy vegetarians. Wouldn't surprise me if true vegans needed supplements though.

>>10933848
Animals are in a constant state of violent, horrific warfare. Killing them sometimes for our own amusement or benefit is irrelevant compared to the immense blood-war that is life as an animal.

Why is this thread so bad? I have rarely seen a worse debate on /lit/.

>>10937274
>Their experience of our world isn't something we can hope to understand. For all we know, they could be closer to plants than to us, cognitively
I sort of understand this perspective, but aren't you overstating it quite a lot?

Systems like sight, touch, and emotions like fear are much older than humanity, and must belong at least to all the higher mammals. Looking at the way they behave it doesn't seem unreasonable ot also attribute to them emotions that have to do with social bonds, affection of sorts.

Clearly they don't think the way we do, they don't have language, and maybe aren't really aware of themselves, but the actual emotions themselves I don't see why they wouldn't have, if in a different way that we cant quite understand.

the comparison to a plant seems wildly disproportionate.

>>10933848
No.