Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am in search for logical arguments in regards to the ethics of eating meat. Specifically, I am looking for ethical justification in support of meat consumption. For the purpose of this thread, let's define meat as the flesh of a sentient animal, so let's keep the argument focused around birds and mammals mainly as sentience is quite clear. Please do not use any of the following arguments outlined here:Eight Arguments In Favor Of Eating Meat And Objections Thereto
Thanks!
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-02-2015 at 09:11 PM..
Reason: off topic trolling
That's not a logical argument. Please reference the link I posted. Your whole post is covered in points 2 and 5. BTW Beef Magazine isn't a scientific source and certainly isn't unbiased, neither are your other sources.
In all honesty your argument was awful and riddled with logical fallacies. No ethical arguments are comprised of all tangible fact. The idea of a logical argument is to start with premises and arrive at a logical conclusion from those premises. If someone doesn't agree with the premises there is nothing more to discuss. However if someone does agree with the premises, they must agree with the conclusion if the argument is logically sound. In the case of an ethical argument it would be reasonable to pick your premises such that a large number of people agree with them. However, I am asking a very different question from that thread.
Last edited by logiclover; 05-03-2015 at 02:43 PM..
In all honesty your argument was awful. However, I am asking a very different question from that thread.
You can try refuting my arguments from the prior thread. Go ahead.
As to your question, I can shut it down easily. You used the word "ethical." Who gets to determine what is or is not ethical? What if your ethics don't agree with or match my ethics? You make it sound as if there is one singular, "carved in stone' set of ethics. There isn't.
Looking for something logical? Sure. As a sovereign human being, I have the power to create and define the ethics by which I live my life. By my free will, I have decided that the ethics by which I will live will include eating meat. The sentience of the animals have no bearing.
You can try refuting my arguments from the prior thread. Go ahead.
As to your question, I can shut it down easily. You used the word "ethical." Who gets to determine what is or is not ethical? What if your ethics don't agree with or match my ethics? You make it sound as if there is one singular, "carved in stone' set of ethics. There isn't.
Looking for something logical? Sure. As a sovereign human being, I have the power to create and define the ethics by which I live my life. By my free will, I have decided that the ethics by which I will live will include eating meat. The sentience of the animals have no bearing.
Can you refute any of my above statement?
This is exactly what I was talking about. Please go read what an ethical argument is. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm According to your logic there is no such thing as an ethical argument and the fact we don't go around raping and killing people has nothing to do with ethics. I will happily refute your "argument" however, first you need to understand how this type of thing works.
As a sovereign human being, I have the power to create and define the ethics by which I live my life. By my free will, I have decided that the ethics by which I will live will include raping women. The sentience of the women have no bearing. See how that doesn't work? That isn't an ethical argument.
This is exactly what I was talking about. Please go read what an ethical argument is. Logical Arguments According to your logic there is no such thing as an ethical argument and the fact we don't go around raping and killing people has nothing to do with ethics. I will happily refute your "argument" however, first you need to understand how this type of thing works.
As a sovereign human being, I have the power to create and define the ethics by which I live my life. By my free will, I have decided that the ethics by which I will live will include raping women. The sentience of the women have no bearing. See how that doesn't work? That isn't an ethical argument.
I will read your link. Surely you realize that there are people that go around raping women? It happens everyday. It happens for the reasons I outlined, which are completely logical.
ETA: OP, I read your link. Please state your proposition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
