/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16197235]

Any books that can make me both morally-consistent and not vegan?

[Anonymous No.16197243]

i too love consumer lifestyles

[Anonymous No.16197281]

>>16197235
This person is severely lacking in social skills. I don't know whether he has EXTREME autism (I mean that in the diagnostic sense, as well as pejorative), or whether it's his Jewish arrogance, or a combination of both, but for the life of me I have never seen another person act so imperiously towards others. As a rule of general conduct, his behaviour is contemptible, but for an evangelist, as he is, it is utterly astonishing, since it surely cannot be helping his cause.
I wouldn't even be this mad if his behaviour, as he probably believes it to be, was actually justified by the fact that he is keeping the debates "on track", and stopping his opponents from obfuscating. But it's not. He demands utter religious devotion to his autistic analytic style of argumentation, where one has to speak in pedantic propositions and back up everything one is saying with formalised logic.
What an horrible human being.

[Anonymous No.16197282]

>>16197235
No.
only eat locally sourced food.
Everything else is smoke up your ass. There is no ethical consumption under late stage capitalism.
Veganism is a shitty trend.

[Anonymous No.16197286]

Any books that can make me both morally-consistent and nonsuicidal vegan?

[Anonymous No.16197306]

>>16197282
Do you think locally vegan would be better than locally omnivorous?

[Anonymous No.16197314]

>>16197306
you think u can locally source enough chickpeas to survive? give it a go

[Anonymous No.16197342]

>>16197306
No. Find a farmer that'll let you look in on his cows and see they're well off, or just buy a couple chickens yourself. If you're sourcing locally, there's no reason to be vegan.

[Anonymous No.16197365]

>>16197314
Probably desu
>>16197342
That sounds like more work than being vegan and I would have a hard time trusting the farmer. Local doesn’t mean the animals are treated well.

[Anonymous No.16197376]

>>16197365
have you never lived around farms? farmers aren't sadists out to torture their animals like the weird caricature vegans make in their mind in order to congratulate themselves for not eating cheese

[Anonymous No.16197380]

>>16197235
dude just think with your brain. there are tons of ways

[Anonymous No.16197383]

>>16197365
>Local doesn’t mean the animals are treated well.
Yes, well, that's why I said find one that'll let you look in on his animals, if you're worried.
I don't know anything about chickens, but my mother recently got a few for eggs, and she hasn't complained about it being particularly hard (except for the fox). If you have a bit of extra money, and a small yard, then I'm sure you can keep two or three without too much trouble.

[Anonymous No.16197389]

>>16197380
people with haunted by food taboos aren't big thinkers

[Anonymous No.16197401]

>>16197281
He is a smug asshole but the people he is talking to are usually clueless. If you can't formulate your argument as a list of premises and a conclusion you should stay away from philosophy until you have a basic grasp on logic. People hate him because he makes them look like idiots.

[Anonymous No.16197414]

>>16197376
I don’t think that, but I also don’t think a farmer would be keen on showing me the worst cases of what his animals have to go through. I’d just rather not take the risk.
>>16197383
Yeah and I think that seems like more work for me than being vegan, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t support a locally vegan diet.

[Anonymous No.16197415]

>>16197282
Your shitty Vaush argument has already been refuted, try again

[Anonymous No.16197420]

>>16197282
We've been in late stage capitalism for 60 years now, or 120 if you count Lenin

[Anonymous No.16197426]

>>16197414
have you checked the working conditions of the laborers growing your local chickpeas? are they paid a living wage? do they have access to healthcare?

[Anonymous No.16197427]

>>16197282
A good, sound reply to a bait thread.

[Anonymous No.16197435]

>>16197426
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16197438]

>>16197414
>Yeah and I think that seems like more work for me than being vegan, so I don’t see why you wouldn’t support a locally vegan diet.
because it sucks? If you're so insistent on being vegan, then why the fuck did you ask about an omnivorous diet? Just be vegan.

[Anonymous No.16197458]

>>16197435
The chickpea farm didn't also have animals? Wouldn't it be kind of unethical to buy your chickpeas from a farmer who also makes cheese? Fucking murderer.

[Anonymous No.16197463]

>>16197438
The thread is about veganism so I thought it would make sense to ask anon about his thoughts about the morality of a vegan vs omnivorous diet. Sheesh.

[Anonymous No.16197484]

>>16197458
I do the best I can with the alternatives I have. Buying chickpeas from a farmer who also makes cheese doesn’t encourage him to make more cheese at least.

[Anonymous No.16197490]

>>16197235
the Nicomachean ethics (not a joke)

[Anonymous No.16197506]

>>16197463
And in a situation where everything is locally sourced that animals well cared for, there is no moral reason to be vegan, and since veganism is a detrimental diet long term for humans, there is no medical reason either.

[Anonymous No.16197537]

>>16197506
Do you think there are any moral issues with killing something, even if it was well cared for?

[Anonymous No.16197539]

>>16197537
No.

[Anonymous No.16197542]

>>16197539
For any reason?

[Anonymous No.16197545]

>>16197401
Watch his debates with remthebathboi and tell me he isn't severely mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.16197550]

>>16197537
No. It's the way of things. We're not above nature.
Do you think a dead cow hates you for eating it?
Is a lion morally wrong?

[Anonymous No.16197573]

>>16197550
A lion has to eat meat to survive, so I can’t blame it for that. But when there is an alternative to kill (less) it seems like the obviously better choice to me. At least when the killing involves suffering.

[Anonymous No.16197577]

>>16197550
/Thread

[Anonymous No.16197627]

>>16197573
then make sure the animal doesn't suffer.

[Anonymous No.16197629]

>>16197545
He was being an asshole to him but Rem is also a condencending cunt so they kinda deserve each other
Isaac isn't mentally ill he is the only political youtuber who legit knows his shit about philosophy

[Anonymous No.16197637]

>>16197629
>knows he's shit with philosophy
FTFY

[Anonymous No.16197711]

>>16197629
He only knows propositional logic and he forces everyone he talks to to enter into that realm with him, which is obviously retarded since philosophical discussions are best had in natural language, with formal logic being reserved as a way to correct misunderstandings and clarify when necessary. When people refuse to engage in his autism he shouts them down, literally, and declares that they do not have an argument. I don’t think he knows anything about true philosophy, true charitable inquiry, I don’t even think he cares about animals or anything like that, I just think he knows propositional logic and has read up on some analytic philosophy online, and pushes this whole veganism thing in order to take a contrarian position and by defending it assure himself he is superior to everyone else. I do not even imagine he would be able to comprehend the great continental philosophers, since he is so spiritless. Everything about his character is so revolting, so quintessentially Jewish, that he will probably do more harm than good for the vegan cause.

[Anonymous No.16198066]

His chad friend is superior in every way

[Anonymous No.16198133]

>>16197235
Step 1 is to stop being a pathetic hypocrite you dumb cocksucker

[Anonymous No.16198172]

>>16197484
it certainly does.

[Anonymous No.16198176]

>>16197573
this isn't a statement of logic though, merely preference

[Anonymous No.16198183]

>>16198066
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ssj0AYumQY&t=1513s
he can't into logic either

[Anonymous No.16198319]

>>16197627
I’d say that’s virtually impossible at this time, but I agree in theory.
>>16198176
Sure, morals are mostly preference.

[Anonymous No.16198354]

>>16198066
vegan gains is severely autistic. there is something wrong with him. what is your issue?

[Anonymous No.16198398]

>>16198066
Didn’t he pay a few grand to buy a high end carnivorous dog breed then nearly kill it on a vegan diet?

[Anonymous No.16198421]

>>16197235
THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT THE FACT

[Anonymous No.16198433]

>>16198066
>chad
>vasectomy

pick 1

[Anonymous No.16198487]

morality is bad

[Anonymous No.16198719]

>>16197235
Which moral?

[Anonymous No.16198790]

>>16197235
Veganism is a tranding form of moral grandstanding, there's nothing consistent about it at all.

[Anonymous No.16198931]

>>16198066

[Anonymous No.16199046]

>>16197235

[Anonymous No.16199073]

>>16198790
>healthiest diet
>most environmentally friendly position
>most ethical position on animals
veganism is the only consistent position this is carnoid cope

[Anonymous No.16199502]

>>16199073
the environmental factor is the only argument that holds water really. how soon till synthetic meats are widespread and affordable?

[Anonymous No.16199518]

>>16197306
In a pseudo-moral paradigm where animals are equal to people, yes. In reality, and in terms of your health, no.

[Anonymous No.16199537]

There is no argument against veganism -- it is metaphysically impossible. Veganism is the supreme moral principle of the universe. this world is a torture machine

[Anonymous No.16199541]

>>16199073
>healthiest diet
When tracked and macroed to an absurd degree- a ridiculous effort meat-eaters need not go to.
>environmentally healthy
Ever been to an almond or avocado farm? How about a corn or basedbean monoculture? You are a retard. The most environmentally healthy diet is exterminating India and Africa, and veganism is a flaccid consoomer cope to escape the hard necessities of a Linkolan solution.
>moral
Animals are not people. Until animals are people, this gay argument will hold no water. A free-range cow painlessly killed with a boltgun has lived a life as good as can be expected for an inhuman species.

[Anonymous No.16199823]

>>16199541
>>moral
>Animals are not people

Completely arbitrary. You think you can torture an animal simply because it is not human? That's your own relative standard. You are harming another being with a soul

[Anonymous No.16199887]

>>16199823
>torture
not even the same anon. here's your (You) for the amazing bait

[Anonymous No.16199923]

>>16199541
>>16199541
veganism is easy
animal agriculture is gargantually more harmful as you have to grow grains for billions of animals it does not even compare to plant agriculture
Whether it is not human is arbitrary

[Anonymous No.16199928]

>>16199887
Bait is your retarded relativist argument. It's objective fact that it is evil to kill an animal.

[Anonymous No.16199953]

>>16199823
>You are harming another being with a soul
come again?

[Anonymous No.16199978]

>>16199928
>It's objective fact that it is evil to kill an animal
how did you come to that fact?

[Anonymous No.16200023]

>>16199978
>>16199953
Vegetarianism was originally called 'abstaining from beings with a soul'

https://ivu.org/history/greece_rome/porphyry.html
Have a read on this please. It's the best argument for it.

[Anonymous No.16200026]

>>16199928
You said torture, not kill.

[Anonymous No.16200058]

>>16200023
this is just dialectical mysticism, it's not convincing at all to a materialist

[Anonymous No.16200072]

ITT: YouTube debate Kino

Ask-Yourself is a charlatan. Interrupts people and over analyzes self-evident statements for no reason except to try to find a way to win a debate. That’s not productive, that’s just trying to win a game that only he’s playing.

Another debater, TJump, is the same way. They all use a type of “pin-hole methodology.” Where they try to find the smallest gap in an argument to try to escape it.

It’s just pathetic. One can argue that people like Matt Dillahunty is the same way.

[Anonymous No.16200083]

Veganism is inherently immoral. If you need an argument against eradicating all life except humans, you're a dumbfuck.

[Anonymous No.16200088]

>>16200072
not a fan of any of these guys, in fact i've never heard of them before, but if a statement is capable of having a hole poked in it, it fails. there's nothing wrong with this debate tactic, you just sound kinda butthurt

[Anonymous No.16200149]

>>16200088
You’re not understanding what I’m saying.

What I mean by “pin-hole methodology” can be explained by making a formal argument and using the same methodology they use. Let’s, for example, take the Kalam cosmological argument for God’s existence.
(A). Everything that begins to exist has a cause
(B). The Universe began to exist
(C). The Universe has a cause.

What they would use to obfuscate this argumentation is what I’m talking as “pin-hole” methodology. Like for example,

“Well, if the Universe has a cause, what caused the cause of the Universe?”

That statement doesn’t act as a defeater for the argument, it just tries to force the cause into an infinite regress, but that doesn’t work either due to causal finitism. But they just don’t care.

[Anonymous No.16200248]

>>16200058
materialists have no brain

[Anonymous No.16200257]

>>16200083
Actually, all life itself is immoral. You can't argue against this because its objective fact

[Anonymous No.16200269]

>>16197235
Test tube meat

[Anonymous No.16200272]

>>16197281
Remarks copied and pasted verbatim from an /a/ "Asuka vs. Rei" thread.

[Anonymous No.16200312]

>But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy.

Only the wicked and savage willingly consume the decay of flesh.

[Anonymous No.16200322]

>>16200257
Correct, which is why I am a Buddhist. The only solution is nirvana. Samsara is inherently shit, and vegans just want to make it worse.

[Anonymous No.16200339]

>>16200322
How do vegans make it worse?

[Anonymous No.16200386]

>>16198931
This can't be real...

[Anonymous No.16200390]

Animals are not moral agents because they cannot reciprocate rights or recognise moral agents in principle. The thing that makes us human is our ability to establish human societies.

[Anonymous No.16200447]

>>16200390
>we can torture, kill and eat homo-sapiens that cannot reciprocate rights or recognize moral principles
>babies
>old people with mental degradation
dangerously based

[Anonymous No.16200696]

>>16200058
materialism doesnt permit morals with any higher status than preference and opinion. What is the argument to convince someone that your preferences are more preferable?

[Anonymous No.16200741]

>>16199541
>Animals are not people. Until animals are people
retarded

[Anonymous No.16200747]

>>16200322
???

[Anonymous No.16200814]

>>16197550
>>16200390
>But with respect to other animals who do not at all act unjustly, and are not naturally impelled to injure us, it is certainly unjust to destroy and murder them, no otherwise than it would be to slay men who are not iniquitous. And this seems to evince that the justice between us and other animals does not arise from some of them being naturally noxious and malefic, but others not, as is also the case with respect to men

[Anonymous No.16200833]

>>16200696
there isn't one. drop it, and make an argument from utility

[Anonymous No.16200855]

>>16199541
Why do you even open your mouth when you so transparently have no idea what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.16200861]

>>16200833
What is or has 'utility' is a preference or normative you midwit. Materialists need to have their heads bashed in.

[Anonymous No.16200882]

>>16200861
why are the morally superior always so violent? Will I too become violent after becoming as morally evolved as this poster?

[Anonymous No.16200913]

>>16200861
you can set goals and criteria to fill, like the continuity of the human race. that's how utilitarianism works. don't get butthurt, you're sure to lose.

[Anonymous No.16200926]

>>16197235
i was a vegan until i realized i didn't want to spend my life as some obsessed moralfag with an self aggrandizing superiority complex.

veganism is what we might call newage Christianity, veiled in science or ethical pitter patter. it's all so tiresome, these evangelists can't help themselves; they are programmed.

pic related is them when you say "I'm just not convinced"

[Anonymous No.16200947]

>>16197235
just eat doritos lmfao

[Anonymous No.16200960]

>>16200913
You aren't arguing for Utilitarianism you are arguing for Moral Relativism but both are autistic

[Anonymous No.16200980]

>>16200960
i'm not arguing for anything, i'm telling you how to make a more effective argument. and nothing i've said has anything to do with moral relativism at all.

[Anonymous No.16200987]

>>16200980
>you can set goals and criteria to fill
If you are setting goals that should be fulfilled beyond the well-being of individuals this is no longer Utilitarianism it is moral relativism or another autistic system like egoism

[Anonymous No.16200990]

>>16200987
>beyond the well-being of individuals
have i made any such claims?

[Anonymous No.16200998]

>>16200990
>you can set goals and criteria to fill, like the continuity of the human race.
>that's how utilitarianism works
???

[Anonymous No.16201005]

>>16200998
practically synonymous. it's like pottery

[Anonymous No.16201010]

>>16201005
>Utilitarianism is individuals setting goals and completing them
Like I said, Materialists need to have their hollow skulls bashed in.

[Anonymous No.16201022]

>>16201010
i have made no claims as to my personal beliefs, and that's literally what
>actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.
is. a goalpost to be reached. please calm down, you will only alienate the ones you're trying to convince.

[Anonymous No.16201038]

>>16201022
Convince of what? I'm not the anon you were talking to original, materialists are just mentally ill. You hollow head doesn't understand the difference between
>you can set goals and criteria to fill
and
>actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals

[Anonymous No.16201115]

>>16201038
okay well this has been totally pointless, but;
a) never said i was a materialist
b) that definition was a reduction and simplification of utilitarianism designed for the specific use of explaining the difference between utility and simple normative preference

[Anonymous No.16201133]

>>16201115
>never said i was a materialist
i can smell you
>practically synonymous
>that definition was a reduction and simplification of utilitarianism
>"Utilitarianism is (You) deciding a preference/goal"
drown yourself

[Anonymous No.16201179]

>>16201133
my friend, that is, definitely, by YOUR stated definition, what utilitarianism consists of.

[Anonymous No.16201258]

If you not supporting veganism makes you morally inconsistent, then maybe that shows you are unwillingly to change prestablished beliefs even when contradictory, you should do some self reflection.

[Anonymous No.16201276]

>>16197573
>A lion has to eat meat to survive
As does man.

[Anonymous No.16201880]

>>16197711
He doesn't force anyone to speak in propositional logic, he only forces people to state their arguments clearly as a series of premises and a conclusion, which is a legitimate demand in a philosophical debate of all things. Contemporary continental philosophy has gone to shit precisely because they abandoned rigor in favour of Nietzsche style artsy philosophy.
I agree that he gets too emotional sometimes but there is noting wrong with his general approach.

[Anonymous No.16201917]

>>16201880
Doesn't he literally refuses to read any literature on the subject though? He wants arguments like CGA to be reduced to a syllogism, and when this is done he just disagrees with a premise he refuses to read the literature that expands upon said premise because it isn't also written in 3 sentences.

[Anonymous No.16201952]

>>16197235
It’s morally consistent if you’re an ethical egoist. Killing humans leads to jail, whereas eating animals leads to nutrition and tastiness, generally. Pretty simple and not hypocritical in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.16201964]

>>16201952
>ethical egoist
not a real thing

[Anonymous No.16201982]

>>16201964
everyone is an egoist. If they didn’t derive some sort of enjoyment from an action, they wouldn’t do it. No one willingly, anonymously donates to charity with a big frown on his face. The desires always come from within the self, and therefore for the self.

[Anonymous No.16201993]

>>16201982
>t. preschooler
go back to /his/

[Anonymous No.16202004]

>>16201952
>whereas eating animals leads to nutrition
nope you are putting yourself at risk for heart disease (the greatest killer) among other things and you are destroying your own environment. an ethical egoist would go vegan.
nihilism is the only consistent position to not be vegan.

[Anonymous No.16202011]

>>16201917
I don't know what argument are you referring to
But I would think his opponent should be able to present the argument himself instead of going just read the literature bro

[Anonymous No.16202012]

>>16201993
refute it then. You can’t. Why do people step on bugs with no remorse but feel guilt when slightly offending a human? It’s all about the consequences for the self. Even the feeling of feeling bad for doing an action is reason enough not to do it, and it’s perfectly valid for vegans to not eat meat if it makes them feel uneasy, unless the health consequences are significantly worse, of course

[Anonymous No.16202019]

>>16202012
I feel guilt about stepping on bugs and don't care if I offend some schmuck

[Anonymous No.16202022]

>>16202004
Veganism is inconvenient and almost impossible to universalize. It would be horrible for the environment.

[Anonymous No.16202029]

>>16202019
yes and some people enjoy murder. The feelings alone may shift your morality but the consequences still hold. One day you might offend the wrong guy and suffer for it.

[Anonymous No.16202030]

>>16202004
>nope you are putting yourself at risk for heart disease (the greatest killer) among other things and you are destroying your own environment. an ethical egoist would go vegan.
>nihilism is the only consistent position to not be vegan.
1. As far as I know, there isn't a huge risk for heart disease if you eat meat in moderation
2. Te environmental point is irrelevant because one person can't destroy the environment

[Anonymous No.16202034]

>>16202022
veganism is objectively better for the environment stop speaking out of your ass. like half the grains that are grown go to the billions of livestock. eliminating animal agriculture would also lessen the amount of grains we need to grow.
and schmucks in third world countries can do veganism. first worlders have no excuse.

[Anonymous No.16202037]

>>16202012
refute what? you are literally talking spooks

[Anonymous No.16202047]

>>16202011
If someone presents him the argument in the syllogism, as he requests, but he disagrees with a premise, why not read the most robust form of the argument in the literature rather than in a oral conversation which would offer less information?

[Anonymous No.16202050]

>>16202037
It’s not a spook that I should do what leads to the most preferable life. It’s axiomatic. If I should follow any other life, would it not be because I prefer it in some way? But the original life was already defined as being most preferable.

[Anonymous No.16202061]

>>16202030
"moderation" would mean once to twice at most per week and not gargantuan murican servings most people are eating meat everyday and i bet you don't do moderation. and still it would be better if you just got rid of it.

[Anonymous No.16202063]

>>16202037
>egoism
>a spook

[Anonymous No.16202071]

>>16200926
>i was a vegan until i realized i didn't want to spend my life as some obsessed moralfag with an self aggrandizing superiority complex
based

[Anonymous No.16202074]

>>16202050
>It’s not a spook that I should do what leads to the most preferable life. It’s axiomatic. If I should follow any other life, would it not be because I prefer it in some way? But the original life was already defined as being most preferable.

>>16202063
ethical egosim isn't a spook its just autistic and none one takes it seriously.
>everyone is an egoist. If they didn’t derive some sort of enjoyment from an action, they wouldn’t do it.
is a spook and r*ddit philosophy

[Anonymous No.16202077]

>>16198066
This person looks like he has down syndrome. What is he going to do with those arms, anyways? Seems like that was a lot of time spent that could have been put to good use in accumulating diverse life experience or a skill or having sex.

[Anonymous No.16202082]

>>16202074
Egoism is the unique privilege of the naturally ethical.

[Anonymous No.16202106]

>>16202074
no argument found

[Anonymous No.16202114]

>>16202106
>>16202082
>Egoism is the unique privilege of the naturally ethical.

because you aren't saying anything you midwit

[Anonymous No.16202125]

>>16202114
You replied to two different people, you silly billy boy you.

[Anonymous No.16202128]

>>16202114
It’s very clear that I’m saying I should do what is most preferable in the end. And for some reason you’re rejecting that. Why?

[Anonymous No.16202137]

>>16202128
Not what you said retard
>everyone is an egoist. If they didn’t derive some sort of enjoyment from an action, they wouldn’t do it.
Prove this and dispute the work of Batson

[Anonymous No.16202152]

>>16202137
why have empathy for people? It eventually comes back to the self, unless we’re all connected in some way and that by helping others we are directly helping the self, which is still egoistic. As I said before, no one willingly donates to charity while also hating it. He has to have some sort of incentive or preference in order to do the action in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16202174]

>>16202152
>which is still egoistic
no it isn't, you are just redefining psychological egoism as an exertion of will. Pseud-r*ddit philosophy.

>I gain no pleasure from replying to you but I do it anyway.
prove this wrong without spooks - or just read the work of Batson who himself tried to prove psychological egoism but concluded he couldn't after decades of work.

[Anonymous No.16202177]

>>16198183
destiny just larping as an edgy psycho

[Anonymous No.16202179]

Carnivores are disgusting. The amount of mental gymnastics you guys make is ridiculous. Just say "me don't care, burger tastes yummy" and get on with living your ignorant, unethical life.

[Anonymous No.16202189]

I eat what pleases me to taste.
Everything else is pure adulterated faggotry.

[Anonymous No.16202191]

>>16200272
based

[Anonymous No.16202193]

>>16202174
I can’t prove it, and you can’t disprove it, and neither can you prove an opposing theory. But it’s most reasonable. Why are you doing something if you do not prefer it in some way? Pure altruism is just as likely as any other random act that isn’t based on the self. Why do you help others but not stab your self in the eye? What determines your actions?

[Anonymous No.16202207]

>>16202174
Wait, so you do things that you don't want to do? That you get absolutely 0 benefit from? Like not even that altruism high? Why? Are you retarded?
Name something that you, or other people do, that they receive no benefit from.

[Anonymous No.16202223]

>>16202193
>I can’t prove it, and you can’t disprove it
Literally the point, to assert otherwise is a spook.

>What determines your actions?
My will, to act upon a will is not self-interested that is something you are randomly asserting. I doesn't follow that just having a desire or committing an action is for self-interest. Read Batson or any literature on the subject, please. Psychological egoism is pseud philosophy that no one takes seriously.
Again you are just trying to conflate a will or having desire with self-interest but it doesn't follow and is just redefining psychological egoism to be meaningless. Pseudo philosophy 101.

Give me an example of an action that could be preformed that would disprove your belief

>>16202207
>so you do things that you don't want to do?
/lit/ actually doesn't read and just filled with twitter philosophers.
>so you aren't yourself?
That isn't want psychological egoism is. Obviously I do what I want to do, saying that doesn't mean anything.

[Anonymous No.16202264]

>>16202223
>"feeling empathy for [a] person in need evokes motivation to help [that person] in which these benefits to self are not the ultimate goal of helping; they are unintended consequences"
So you see someone in need. That makes you feel feels. Then helping them makes the bad feely feels go away and replaces them with good feely feels. Again, I don't see how this isn't in your own interest.
>it's an unintended consequence
Feeling the bad feels was the primary motivator. You don't want to feel bad.

[Anonymous No.16202270]

>>16202223
>Give me an example of an action that could be preformed that would disprove your belief
it’s logically incoherent, like libertarian free will. I can’t think of an example because it seems impossible in all situations. The only way one could be altruistic is if his whole body and mind were a puppet of another’s, and was being used for his own interest. But at that point, it’s no longer an action. Even seemingly random actions like screaming would still be caused by some sort of inner compulsion to do so. The fact that you do the action is proof that you are interested in doing it, so that it is in your self-interest.

[Anonymous No.16202294]

>>16202270
>I can’t think of an example because it seems impossible in all situations.
Because you are just saying "having a will/acting is self-interested" without evidence for the claim. For one, this isn't what psychological egoism is, this is your own random definition.
>Everyone is retarded
>By retarded I mean having a will/acting
>You cannot disprove that everyone is a retard
No one uses this definition of psychological egoism in philosophy or academia. Second, it is just an unfalsifiable claim that you hold without evidence - irrational and autistic.

[Anonymous No.16202303]

>>16202270
Again read Batson - the *very* limited empirical evidence that exists and can be done on the subject is in opposition of psychological egoism.

[Anonymous No.16202306]

>>16202047
Guess delving a bit more in the literature wouldn't hurt

[Anonymous No.16202310]

>>16202303
>empirical evidence
post it

[Anonymous No.16202311]

>>16197235
On the genealogy or morals by F Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16202312]

>thinking morality has to be consistent

[Anonymous No.16202321]

>>16202294
will/desire are preferences/interests from the beginning. So it’s pretty obvious that all actions are self-interested, so long as these actions are caused by a desire.

[Anonymous No.16202324]

>>16202061
I eat meat at most two times in a week. There are many weeks where I don't eat meat at all. As far as I know this is pretty moderate.

[Anonymous No.16202332]

>>16202303
you can’t prove that either. All actions can be related back to self-interest. Even if an action doesn’t necessarily lead to good consequences, the feeling of having done the action is reward enough. Again, no one willingly donates to charity with a frown on his face.

[Anonymous No.16202335]

>>16202061
A single meal without meat (or fish) is not complete. I bet you look like an asparagus with skinny fat around the belly. That's from all the sugar you're eating instead of manly protein-rich food.

[Anonymous No.16202336]

>>16197235
>A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do
Also don't be a moralfag, it's very tiring for everyone

[Anonymous No.16202341]

>>16202310
I told you, the work of Batson is the most comprehensive investigation into the question of psychological egoism. Batson himself tried to prove psychological egoism for decades starting in the 90s. For holding such strong irrational views it seems odd to be ignorant of a 20 year investigation into the subject.

>>16202321
>>16202332
>t. psueds
read a book and graduate highschool

[Anonymous No.16202356]

>>16202341
being unable to prove A doesn’t mean ~A is true. I’ve already admitted that psychological egoism can’t be proven, as with so many other things, but I’d rather not preface all of my claims with “I cannot prove this beyond a doubt.” It just makes more sense than altruism, especially since we treat external objects in relation to how they affect us, either through the consequences or simply on our immediate feelings. I kill animals, but not humans

[Anonymous No.16202387]

>>16202335
French fries and Oreos are vegan, after all.

[Anonymous No.16202401]

>>16202356
>I’ve already admitted that psychological egoism can’t be proven
which psychological egoism are you talking about? Psychological Egoism as defined by philosophers and academics for centuries or the pseud-redefined version being peddled here? If it is the first: read Batson. If it is the latter: you are irrational and autistic - it is akin to arguing trivialism. I would say still read Batson but you are to far gone - good luck on your career as a youtube philosopher king.

[Anonymous No.16202405]

>>16202335
you are destroying the environment, your body, and animals. meat eaters are nihilists.

[Anonymous No.16202417]

>>16202405
I'm not destroying anything. I'm an apex predator eating what I was born and evolved to eat. You're probably descending from the slave class my ancestors kept around and fed with their scraps. That's why you empathize with farm animals over other human beings, the farm animals are the creatures you are spiritually the closest to.

[Anonymous No.16202430]

>>16202417
Based. Veganism is the epitome of slave morality.

[Anonymous No.16202435]

>>16202405
Fuck fish
Chickens are cunts
Cows are alright though, I'll give you cows, but not their milk, that shit's mine
and pigs, pigs are alright too, except bacon is way too fucking good to go cold Turkey (Oh, and fuck turkeys too) on. I'll concede by eating it sparingly, which I already do

[Anonymous No.16202442]

>>16197235
The Bible
Jesus fed fish to the masses so if God gave you meat to eat, eating meat is not wrong.

[Anonymous No.16202445]

>>16197235
analyticism is a mental disorder

[Anonymous No.16202449]

>>16202435
Cows barely have a functioning brain. If you leave cows on a field, they will eat until there is no more grass or they die from overeating.
Pigs I can see an argument, they're on the same intelligence level as dogs.

[Anonymous No.16202456]

>>16202442
Do we know they ate flesh if they never ate the original fish?

[Anonymous No.16202465]

>>16202449
Yeah, but they aren't cunts like chickens. They're big cute beefy paddock boys.

[Anonymous No.16202474]

Don’t you understand?
The grass dies so the cattle may live. Without its death, those that eat it are without life. Man, too, is one among nature. Furthermore, life is a zero-sum game, for every mouthful taken is another lost to another.
Look at vultures, hyenas and chimpanzees, how cruel they are! It is only natural for one to care for its and its tribe’s benefit, not for all and at one’s own expense. Doubtless to say, you have a God Complex, that you are held to be the world’s shepherd.
Most likely, you will remain wilfully ignorant. Resultant of that - given the fact you belong to the death cult of one’s own Impact-Reduction - I will volunteer to eat you alive. At least thousands of ‘souls’ shall be spared from being put into toothpaste, shampoo and other such things

[Killed a nigger in Portland No.16202496]

Think of the Realpolitik
Forget ideology
Do you want to this to be you?

[Anonymous No.16202523]

>>16202456
>divinely multiplied meat is not meat
uh...
God summoned birds for the jews to eat in their 40 years of wandering the wastes. Again, if God shows that eating meat is okay, why should I care about the bellyaching of some atheist vegan who hates my guts anyway?

[Anonymous No.16202538]

>>16197281
>person made me think and feel bad so they're horrible

[Anonymous No.16202610]

>>16202430
They're actively looking for someone to tell them what they can't eat.

[Anonymous No.16202730]

>>16202523
I'm just not convinced either of these events were the eating of flesh. If they were divine creations they could be anything, no? Why should we assume they are flesh and not something else that God provided for food?

[Anonymous No.16202889]

>>16197414
>more work for me than being vegan
I'm sweden farmers get visitors (mostly school children) pretty much every week, it's like going any other place, quite fascinating, some cows here live better than people.

[Anonymous No.16202892]

>>16202496

[Anonymous No.16202899]

>>16197573
>veganism is only possible because of global bad for the environment trade and modern chemistry for extracting vegan vitamins like B12.
>Man doesn't require meat

[Anonymous No.16202904]

>>16197235
Why would you need a book for that?

Decide that killing and torture for fun isn't against your values and enjoy a nice burger.

[Anonymous No.16202908]

>>16202496
>considering to have children
Yes, that's exactly what's missing in the world!

[Anonymous No.16202913]

>>16202908
based
Vegans who aren't antinatalists too are fucking hypocrites

[Anonymous No.16202960]

>>16202730
Everything is a divine creation so that argument doesn't make sense. Saying that meat is not meat because it was made by God would mean that nothing is meat and so everything is okay to eat anyways.

[Anonymous No.16202986]

>>16202960
>Everything is a divine creation
Surely you see the distinction between everything that exists as divine creation now and new creations of existence? If a 'steak' appeared in front me out of nothing I would not presume it was a real steak.

[Anonymous No.16203000]

>>16202986
That's irrelevant. God exists outside of time, so the dichotomy between new and old doesn't even exist, thus invalidating your line of argument.

[Anonymous No.16203010]

>>16203000
If a 'steak' is created out of nothing how do we know that it is animal flesh though?

[Anonymous No.16203078]

>>16202177
You're dumb

[Anonymous No.16203119]

>>16202523
Nobody said eating meat is not okay, rather that destroying the environment through farming livestock and then brutally murdering those living beings, is not ok.