Is Zizek going crazy? Why would anyone be a vegetarian, except

File: 1490108224256.jpg (239KB, 1173x882px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1173x882px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maex3jW0Yw8

>>9422675
Well, Zizek is a vegetarian, so keep that in mind, this colors his moral view of the animal industry.

But Zizek does believe in Morality. Check out his book Radical Evil, where he and some other offers try to offer non-mystical notions of Evil.

It isn't a black and white choice between Scientific Materialist Amoralism and Theist Morality, there are plenty of other positions out there.

>>9422675

1. Producing meat is polluting
2. You won't reincarnate in a human body if you eat meat according to Pythagoras

That's all I need to know

>>9422692
Well, no one in human history will reincarnate then

Is it okay if I hunt my own meat?

>Zizek trying to force more !ideology into his concept stack

"it is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of it" - Jesus

all i need to know

>>9422711
Only if it suffers

>>9422741
you hurt my feelings, kill yourself

>going crazy
>going

Haha, very good, you make me laugh, you go to Gulag.

>>9422675
you know what? your statement is falsifiable
just watch earthlings until the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX_67IsyUaI

>>9422675
One can believe in absolute morality even if one doesn't believe in a "higher power".
I'm an atheist, but to me it is obvious to the point of being almost axiomatic that I should try not to cause needless suffering.

>feel empathy
>dont want to eat something you feel identified with
>empathy towards animals is greater than gluttony
>eat tasteless plants instead
is it really that hard to understand?

Eating meat is really hard to justify philosophically unless you are going for hardcore, II don't give a heck anthropocentrism, which is intellectually lazy. It's a majority position among philosophers for a reaosn.

>>9422741
What did you expect from people who pratice babbies abortion?

>>9422772
But your opponents would say that it's obvious that I should do whatever it takes to make others suffer in my place....that others suffering is preferable to me suffering.....

>>9422807
To elaborate:
axiom: some animals (pets and exotic animals) have rights and don't deserve harm ie. cats and dogs. almost no one would willingly harm a puppy.

Now you need to explain, why cats and dogs have these rights but chicken and cows don't. Since the distinction is down to humans preference any justification is going to be fairly anthropocentrism. But how do you reconcile the fact that you have already conceded animals (pets) some rights? How do you argue against someone that wants to eat a bunch of puppies without being vulnerable to the same argument regarding chickens, cows. etc? I mean, you can do it but it's not nearly as convincing as just going vegetarian, from a philosophical standpoint.

>>9422835
>almost no one would willingly harm a puppy.
This was never the case globally though until western influences hit the east hardcore. I mean imagine the culture shock of going online to post about the delicious dog you just had and then getting death threats because americans literally cannot fathom how anyone would ever eat an animal***

There is literally nothing wrong with eating animals, including cats and dogs, people continue to do so. Do not let some retarded western view infiltrate this concept as they perverted the human body.

>>9422807
>Eating meat is really hard to justify philosophically
Only if you follow utilitarianism.

>>9422675
tldr didnt read but turns out global meat production is actually really terrible for the environment. Look it up

>>9422772
How come, what is your justification? Why shouldn't you focus entirely on your own pleasure, since there is no intrinsic meaning in anything? Why should I care about others, why should I even bother with simple animals who are incredibly delicious?

This is a serious question, I have asked this question (how can there be an intrinsic morality that is imperative, or at least "right" for us to follow it) here many times, yet no one answered it. I'd like to make it clear that I don't follow any religion, but I am not an individualist, an egoist, in the extreme sense of the word, because I simply am not capable of living like that, it is too depressing. I do not believe in any intrinsic morality, yet I follow one simply because I enjoy it.

>>9422845
>This was never the case globally though until western influences hit the east hardcore.

I don't even necessarily disagree but we are on a western board here for the sake of arguing.

>>9422866
You still need to formulate a sound moral theory that somehow arbitrarily gives certain animals rights and others not.

>>9422913
>You still need to formulate a sound moral theory that somehow arbitrarily gives certain animals rights and others not.
No, you need not do any such thing, you can easily set up a moral theory where "rights" aren't a thing.

>>9422924
Sure, but denying the idea of "rights" in general is a pretty far argumentative leap just for some steak, lel

>>9422913
I don't eat puppies or kittens because they are cute, and I had a strong relationship with a dog when I was a kid, and I have one now with my cat. I don't care if people are eating dogs in China, I dislike the idea because dogs are cute, but it's their choice.

Basically dogs and cats are easier to feel empathy for, but you can eat them, I don't care.

And about torturing animals? Well, most of the stories about torturing animals in slaughterhouses are completely fake. It makes the meat stiff and doesn't taste good. If I ever see someone raping any animal of any kind, I'll feel a strong hatred for that person because he is surely a degenerate, and thats fucked up. I think it's completely fine to eat meat because it is delicious, torturing animals is not fine because most of the time it is useless, and doing even worse things like rape should be banned by law. Basically, slaughtering animals for food is completely fine. As long as it has some use, and I won't feel too empathetic, it's fine.

>bearded slobvenian man mumbles incoherently again
>news at 11

>>9422941
If you do it for some steak, sure, if you were going to do it anyway, no.
I don't see what's necessarily wrong from a virtue ethical standpoint in killing animals in order to eat them.

>>9422772
>One can believe in absolute morality even if one doesn't believe in a "higher power".

No you can't fag. Nietzsche literally discussed this 130 years ago moron.

The death of God literally means that morality is just different perspectives.

>>9422675
Having empathy for animals is "crazy"? I mean, Im not a vegetarian or anything, but watching videos of slaughterhouses is pretty fucking hard to stomach.

And to all the people talking about morality in this thread; this has nothing to do with "morality". Hes simply pointing out the fact that most people are ok with eating meat despite the fact they would be absolutely horrified by the process of how meat is produced. I dont see what this has to do with whether or not objective morality exists

>>9422717
brb gonna go suck a bunch of cocks

>>9422913
>I don't even necessarily disagree but we are on a western board here for the sake of arguing.
Oh for sure, but I'm just re-injecting how fluid "rights" actually are into the discussion. If someone wanted to, they could be adopting cats/dogs constantly and then frying them up. There aren't any consequences unless neighbours speak up in that case.

>>9422845
>vegetarianism is a western view
lol

File: illiterate.gif (1MB, 332x332px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 332x332px

>>9422995

>>9422986
Yes you can, you'll find plenty of discussions on the independence of ethics from the existence of God have developed since Nietzsche.

>>9422986
>The death of God literally means that morality is just different perspectives.

No it doesnt. It means that religion is no longer the central pillar of society. Everything used to be done in the name of god, now its done in the name of society itself

Let's do some comparative neuro-anatomy and discuss the fact that we use beef instead of cow, and pork instead of pig, and consider whether or not lamb and lamb is the counterargument to kaput the whole "we know it's totally fucked up but we do it and attempt to distance ourselves by giving mr. pig's work a nom de plume".

>>9422913
>sound moral theory that somehow arbitrarily gives certain animals rights and others not.

There is no logical basis for protecting some animals and not others. There is no way to distinguish food animals from non food animals scientifically. A moral argument would be absolutely silly. Animals are things, things have no moral rights or value. Only human beings do. So we cant eat humans (homo sapien sapiens) people who think dogs are worth protecting and eating cow or chicken is ok. That is an arbitrary distinction. Setting humans aside as the only animal that cannot be killed is.not arbitrary because we are the only animal that can create and appreciate a classification. There are a great many animals that will eat humans. We are not a protected class from consumption in the animal kingdom. Any study of the reality of nature and animal behavior leads us to see that there is no distinction delineated in nature in anyway that separates the food animals from the not food animals. Everything is free to eat anything it wants. There is nothing inherent to nature that separated doggies from cows. It's meat. The lion will eat both, the snake will eat both, and we will eat both. It matters not in any way.

Why do vegetarians get upset with humans eating cows but not lions eating other animals? Why are lions free to eat what it desires, but humans are not?

>>9423012
Hot dog 4 lyf3

>>9422675
Zizek isn't a nihilist you stupid fuck. Not every philosopher who doesn't believe in God follows your shitty 'skimmed the back cover of Twilight of the Idols' ethical stance.

>>9422989
those cocks will still need to leave
christs message is water- and other forms of fluid-proof

>>9423005
Just because you can find them doesn't mean they are legitimate.

>>9422692
>1. Producing meat is polluting
Not everywhere. Some land is too far up north to produce any wheat for man, but crops for beasts it will grow just fine.
2. Is this an argument against eating meat?

>>9422988
>I dont see what this has to do with whether or not objective morality exists
What do you expect? This board is full of psueds who have to constantly jack off their own intellect by randomly name dropping philosophers and refrencing philisophical concepts when its totally irrelevant. These are the people you meet at parties who interrupt a casual conversation about tv shows with a random rambling about the categorical imperative

>>9423012
>we know it's totally fucked up but we do it and attempt to distance ourselves
>this is what fatherless urbanite numales actually believe
Stop being a retarded mangina, go innawoods, shoot something, skin it, gut it, cook and eat it. Then you will hopefully stop posting this autistic drivel.

>>9423052
>going to a party anyways
As my good friend JK Rowling wrote, When guards hum, levi's sad.

>>9423043
Yes, the same way goes for Nietzsche. Just because he hold moral anti-realism to be necessarily true under atheism, doesn't mean he's right. In fact, I don't see how he is right.

>>9423018
>Why are lions free to sleep all day, shit wherever and have a harem full of pussy, but humans are not?
Your argument is shit, mate.

File: fn.png (383KB, 1000x694px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1000x694px

>>9422986
>muh, I wanna do what I wanna do!
>muh, your rules are stoopid and they bully me!
Yeah, whatever, pal. Nietzsche sounds pretty moralistic to me...

people abort children
people eat animals.
people punish people
people euthanize his pets
people put you a name when you cant say a shit.
people go to take long walks with his dogs and make a breath when reach at his door.
people eat plants with Black and White sausage Rolling with her saliva
people love everybody in the abstract
people is always the savior of something.


daily reminder that all vegetarians will make "reserves " to cows and chickens totally far away from her lifes.

>>9423072
Humans can do all of those things though friend

I think the best thing about mass 3D printing tissue and organs are not the millions of saved lives, but the fact that all the vegans will finally shut up.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 620x372px

>>9422779
>tasteless plants

Fruit is damn delicious for the most part, and you would have to be really glattonous in order to eat enough fruit to damage your body.

pic related: he ate way too much fruit (6kg everyday) and suffered intestinal problems for his entire life cause of it

>>9422675
You do realize he was pointing towards human suffering and not vegetarianism?

>>9423067
Where is the "absolute" part of any morality, if there is no grounding for such a thing?

>>9423072
>sleep all day, shit wherever and have a harem full of pussy, but humans are not?

But there are people who sleep all day and have harems of pussy, anon.

Aren't you just proving my point. There is nothing that the other animals do that we are not free to do.

Are vegetarians going to run out into the jungles and stop all the other animals from eating each other because being eaten is painful for them? Imagine how morally superior they could feel of the accomplished that!

>>9423096
Who says there is no grounding for such thing?

>>9422675

So Zizek doesn't believe in the existence of morality? I can understand the "nature is indifferent" relativist perspective but if he feels a very human empathy how can he not even admit that some element of morality is innate (and therefore exists external to subjectivity)?

Am I missing something here? He seems a bit contradictory.

>>9423018
>There is no logical basis for protecting some animals and not others.
How about there function you fucking idiot
A good hunting dog is not something you would eat, because it serves as a tool. Thus you would not eat dogs because of their use, as opposed to say, a cow that can only produce milk and more cows.

>>9423104
So what is the grounding then?

Because for any axiom you're going to bring up, I can give you another, and thus the absolutism is gone at first sight.

>>9423106
>How about there function you fucking idiot
A spider should take over all rights you currently own 2 b h

>>9423067
He was skeptic too about his skepticism, yet he thought that, given the reality of things, he had no reason to believe in God.

By the way Nietzsche is not a militant atheist, you're probably conflating his opinion to that position cause of his anti-christianity: well, keep in mind that his criticism of the Christian faith did not stem from the fact that there is no proof for that (since he transvalued the value of truth: something being false or arbitrary does not necessarily mean that we should aboid it), rather he criticized the effects it had on the European population in his various forms (mainly Protestantism and Catholicism). Nietzsche was being far more pragmatic than you may think.

>>9423111
>So what is the grounding then?
It depends on which current of moral realism you're following. Why ask me these questions when you can just go on plato.stanford.edu and read up a much better explanation of this stuff?
>>9423114
I know, I'm criticizing anon, not Nietzsche. Nietzsche actually had a quite strong moral system, very aristocratic in nature.

>>9423122
I'm asking you, I'm not asking plato.stanford.edu.

It's more interesting to hear what actual living people have to say than people who are dead.

>>9423125
Oh, give up, troll! You lost.

>>9423125
The people editing that encyclopedia are quite alive afaik.
Anyway, I'm a moral naturalist, which means I believe in moral realism and I think moral facts are natural facts.
Anything specific you want me to elaborate on?

>>9423106
>function

Function is a highly subjective basis of judgement. That is not a solid way of reasoning. Cows were domesticated from wild beasts by people to serve a function as a source food, hunting dogs were domesticated from wild beasts to serve a different function (also to get more meat). So humans created modern tame animals from wild animals and bred characteristics into them by husbandry witch further reinforced the functions that humans gave them. You are creating the function and defining the function at the same time. Being food for humans was not the function of grazing beasts and wolves before humans came along. That function serves us. We subjectively choose how to use them. That is not somehow scientifically inherent to what they are in nature. You can dissect the cow and the dog and not find anything physical and given to them by natural evolution that creates in them the functions of being human food and hunting helpers. We gave them those functions. Not nature. Nature made them both animals with meat. The wolf eats the grazing beast. We eat the grazing beast. We can also eat the wolf. Or we can arbitrarily protect it.

>>9423056
>go innawoods, shoot something, skin it, gut it, cook and eat it.
But this is not something I take issue with. Never has been. Doing that is very different than the conditions in which pigs or chicken live in. You're being willfully dense.

>>9423136
>which means I believe in moral realism and I think moral facts are natural facts.

Which would be a pretty gross violation of the is-ought gap.

Tell me, which values flow from the existence of facts?

>>9423149
>Which would be a pretty gross violation of the is-ought gap.
Anon, before I go on, I want to ask you on question. Do you find mentioning the is-ough gap a really original, difficult to think about objection? You probably don't. Yet moral naturalism is quite popular among philosophers. Don't you think people who basically think about this stuff for a living have never considered this objection?
>which values flow from the existence of facts?
I dont' think that the fact-value (value as in, moral value) distinction is a thing, so...

>>9423106
What about the fact that in other regions (e.g. China) they do eat dogs? Or how about the fact that we don't eat cat's even though they aren't very functional? Even your cow example is flawed - cows can are used for pulling carts and stuff like that.

>>9423149
Animals have consciousness, ergo, we happily MURDER them.

>>9423031
brb gonna gulp down a whole load of cum

>>9423087
>he doesn't know how fattening and unnutritious 90% of fruit is

>>9423106
milk is p good dude

>>9423160
*transubstantiates it into the body of christ so it's not gay*

>>9423147
>different

It's not any different. We figured out more effective hunting methods and cultivation methods over time. You are subjectively judging hunting a wild beast as being somehow more gentle and humane than farm breeding and slaughtering. For who? The wild bras suffers a great deal as the arrow or bullet tears into its body and it bleeds or suffocates possibly for hours in absolute terror the entire time. It's not somehow more morally right to hunt a beast and slaughter it in the wild. It's an animal of prey, it lives its whole life being hunted by us, the wolf, the bear, snakes. From the time its born until it finally is caught and killed by something it lives in fear. Your factory full of chickens do t want to die either but it doesn't matter what they want, or the wild dear either because there is a smarter, and faster, and more efficient predator that is hungry. So it does. Saves your morality. Vegetarians are as bad as christfags.

>>9422675
Except for religious reasons, why would anyone not kill for their own gain if they had good reason to believe they wouldn't be caught?

Perhaps because the existence of a God is not the only source from which we can derive a system of morality. Might I suggest taking an introductory class on ethics and studying varying ethical systems like Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, ethical egoism (i.e. bullshit), social contract theory, etc.?

File: stirnerrrrrrr.jpg (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

You seem to think that there's a ghost lurking in that porkchop... Kid...

>>9423018
One can obviously use an animals cognitive and emotional abilities as criterion. Your argument is flawed.

>>9423179
Well, i'm not a vegetarian. But I really have no understanding of how you see no difference in hunting food for yourself and raising billions of hormone pumped for mass consumption. The conditions most animals have been raised in are very different from their lives in the wild.
There are a lot of examples freely available, but it occurs to me your inability to see any sort of disparity in the quality of life and treatment in these situations must be the mark of someone really under a heavy burden.
I don't know why you jump to the conclusion that I think hunting for yourself is more "gentle".

>>9423187
anon pls love me
im not a spook

Quick question.
Why can't we slaughter and eat psychopaths?

>>9423195
Your argument is flawed.

>>9423213
Largely legal systems stand in the way but if you don't care for such, go 4 it.

>>9423157
>Don't you think people who basically think about this stuff for a living have never considered this objection?

I think it's more likely that they do a sleight of hand and refuse to answer the objection instead.

I mean, if values flowed from naturalism, this could easily be used to justify a society based on racist hierarchy.

>>9423208
>The conditions most animals have been raised in are very different from their lives in the wild.
and lives in the wild are comfortable?

File: 1482691462045.gif (923KB, 290x163px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 290x163px

>>9423179
Oh, see, you're a fucking pleb joke! I am a hunter, and you clearly are not! You're some pathetic dorito-dusted porker hiding in his mom's basement breathing through his mouth and sputtering at all dem idjits on da internet! Come fight me from your safe space, fatfuck! I dare you! I doubledog dare you, fuckwit.
What a joke.

>>9423220
>Largely legal systems stand in the way but if you don't care for such, go 4 it.
I'm just curious. A lot of people might say that animals have no feelings, or they can't feel pain, therefore it is ok. Why not kill some and eat some psychos? Offer them up at the deli. We can simply call them psychos to keep the mammalian beef-cow type distance if you want.

>>9423208
>he's acting as if being pumped with hormones is some insanely awful life
I'm assembling a trons takedown of that comment right fucking now bitch.

>>9423222
>I think it's more likely that they do a sleight of hand and refuse to answer the objection instead.
Not really.
>if values flowed from naturalism, this could easily be used to justify a society based on racist hierarchy
Why?

>>9423235
Being blind and afraid and hardly able to move seems good to some people I guess.

>>9423220
>Your argument is flawed

Care to elaborate? I don't see why you'd dispute the validity of such a criterion. One of the primary reasons people in general privilege humans over other animals is that we view ourselves as smarter, capable of experiencing a wider range of emotions (and more intense emotional states), and we have a higher degree of self-awareness when something "good" or bad" is happening to us.

>>9423234
>A lot of people might say that animals have no feelings, or they can't feel pain
I mean, scientifically this has been proven false. They can feel pain. Whether or not this correlates to 'feelings' is yet to be understood. This is why so many groups now make it a priority that animals are killed in as painless an option possible. We're not yet at the point where this is the mandatory standard though. For instance there are people who argue halal meats should never alter their methods because it's bigoted.

I don't know why you're curious though, I'm also fine with that suggestion. Largely it's this weird 'human supremacy' view that has created these legal systems in which you cannot just eat up another human. However, that hasn't stopped people lol

>>9423244
It's the life they live - they HAVE to like it. Ever wonder what a troll is like and why they do what they do? Now you know.

so is it immoral for other animals to eat meat? or only when humans do it?

File: 1491676738106.gif (615KB, 300x190px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 300x190px

>>9423138
Fug I got diddled
Still it's been thousands of years since we bred them like we have, isn't it too late to change that? Aren't cows still forced to just produce meat and milk?

>>9423236
>Why?

I don't know? Maybe the fact that blacks have lower group IQ than whites could be used as a justification for restricting their rights.

It is a fact that blacks in America have lower group IQ than whites, so if you want to take the naturalism route be careful what you wish for.

>>9423244
It follows that chopping them for their meat would be a mercy kill?

>>9423248
He's trolling you!! Stahp, for your own sake.

>>9423248
>Care to elaborate.
Oh no, I was just mimicking you. Was curious if you enjoyed your own medicine as much as you do administering it.

>>9423244
>pumped with hormones = blind, afraid, and hardly able to move
Excuse me you fucking bigot?
Also, you're a neet who's ugly, retarded, and hardly able to move anymore. Yet here you are living it I guess LMAOO

>>9423258
I don't see how it follows that since group a is on average a bit dumber than group b then we should restrict their rights or how this is an objection to moral naturalism or why we're even talking about this instead of, say, teleonomy.

>>9423259
Ya, just like torturing someone for information they don't have.

>>9423269
Actually it's not like that at all. It's more like giving birth to a baby who was created through artificial methods, and then it comes out pretty much dead and using body parts for whatever means (such as research).

>>9423268
>Ethical naturalism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:
>Ethical sentences express propositions.
>Some such propositions are true.
>Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion.
>These moral features of the world are reducible to some set of non-moral features

>Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world

>>9423278
I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to torture them in the first place. But, ya, if he's got the slow bleed in pain so terrible you can't even move, then ya, give it the mercy kill.

>>9423249
>Can't into basic cognitive science and philosophy of mind.

You can't prove that non-human animals feel pain, all you can "prove" is that their nervous systems have the same structural components which in human are associated with the transmission of "pain signals" in response to painful stimuli. No Similarly, we can observe "pain behavior" in non-human animals. That being said, no non-human animal has ever actually told us that it's in pain, so we have no way of knowing they actually are.

Of course I don't actually view that argument s significant in any way (and neither would most neuroscientists or cognitive scientists). That being said, you should be ccareful not to conflate a qualitative feeling (e.g. pain) with either a neurological state or behavioral response. (Furthermore, I think that this same argument could be applied to humans, after all, what is the claim "I'm in pain" other than a form of pain behavior - and this doesn't mean I endorse "behaviorist linguistics", just that I rightfully don't view linguistic communication as ontologically distinct from "behavior", broadly speaking.)

File: bait.jpg (101KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 625x626px

>>9423300
You're really bored today. That is delightful!

>>9423300
But I was referring to pain in the behavioral response as signified by my separation of feelings.

>>9423287
Existence itself is torture.

>>9423317
>anon can't keep up who's trolling who
Everyone here is a renowned master baiter, please catch the FUCK up sis.

>>9423284
Who are you quoting friend, surely not my gay ass

>>9423187
Indeed; I can have empathy for the pig and still consume it after it has been effectively tortured to death. Why do I care about "contributing" to an illusory system (capitalism) if it benefits me to do so? Not only that: many meat producers now make a point of providing "free-range," "grass-fed," and other sorts of "ethically" raised and slaughtered ruminants. I can consume meat and still contribute to the system Zizek derides. How does his argument from empathy work in this case?

Decadent capitalism will wear itself out regardless of what I do.

>>9423262
>I was just mimicking you.

In what sense? I stated that your argument was flawed and provided a counter-example - namely that an animal's cognitive and emotional capacities can provide us a criterion for assessing it relative moral status with respect to other animals. After all, these same moral problems don't arise with respect to plants precisely because their isn't any reason to believe they "think" or "feel" in the way that animals do (including humans).

This seems to be a fairly significant point: even if it's wrong, any philosopher of ethics would take it seriously even if they don't actually agree. You can't just reject the point without an argument.

>>9422699

EXCEPT vegetarians.

>>9423326
wow zaddy, you're getting me wet

>>9423325
>Who are you quoting friend, surely not my gay ass

I'm pointing out that ethical naturalism can justify actions that could be considered at odds with the prevailing groupthink in the West, e.g egalitarianism.

>>9423284
Yes, I know, and?

>>9422833

A diminution of pleasure does not suffering make.

>>9423331
>>9423195
:thinkingface:

>>9423338
see
>>9423336

>>9423186
Any smart egoist that wants to kill, and is sure he won't be caught, would do it.

And everything you said is pretty stupid. Religion both gives you a reason to follow ethics (do it or go to hell) and an ethics system (don't kill, don't steal, etc). Everything you said does not give you ANY reason to follow it. Utilitarianism is an ethics system, but it does not tell you WHY you should follow it. Neither does Kantian ethics.

God, and the social contract bullshit again. SOCIAL CONTRACT IS NOT ETHICAL, NOR IS IT INTRINSIC TO REALITY. If I were an egoist, I would certainly follow the social contract rules, because I don't want to be made a pariah or to be jailed. But again, if I had the chance to kill without being caught, I would do it.

>>9423360
>If I were an egoist, I would certainly follow the social contract rules, because I don't want to be made a pariah or to be jailed. But again, if I had the chance to kill without being caught, I would do it.
zaddy lemme convince you of this spook free lifestyle with just u & me

File: stirner4.png (58KB, 636x674px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 636x674px

>>9423360
>implying we're not all greater or lesser egoists

>>9423244
as opposed to afraid, sick, scarred and on the brink of starvation? fuck off hippie

>>9423018

Sorry, but you're wrong. African Grey Parrots can distinguish colour and shape. To do so they must have some ability to classify.

>>9423336
Under some variations of it, it might, sure.
And?

>>9423045
true. but mostly he's still right. We still eat way too much meat.

File: 2f7.jpg (94KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 601x508px

>>9423364
>max the memer gottem again

>>9423375
The only way that's logical is if you go down the path and believe that there are way too many humans.

In which case the rational assumption is to...

>>9423382
Eat the humans?

Do you see an aesthetic point in saving live in general with builds up to a commonly spread individual morality of a peaceful and beware way of living? I think Schopenhauer had the thought of how he saw more desirable contacts between humans if we saw the meaning of somehow alien lifeforms next to us.
Sure many will just copy the ideology and proclaim their new partial identity as somehow morally superior, so they believe in it like a religion without creating fundamental insights.
Don't say you love the anime if you haven't read the manga can be applied to a lot of sheep/ plebeians.

But I LIKE knowing the meat that's in my mouth once wriggled in the last struggle for its life.

Same reason I support bullfighting and gladiatorial combat.

Zizek is just against ignoring reality.

>>9423360
But if reward and punishment is the only thing that can provide a foundation for ethics, then the both social contracts and the legal system do indeed constitute ethical systems (the whole point of the social contract theory is that participation is self-incentivizing or self-reinforcing). Of course when professional philosophers (and usually even laymen) talk about ethics, they're precisely NOT talking about why we do things in virtue of their respective rewards an punishments. Ethics is about why we might do something irrespective of any rewards or punishments we might receive (see the Ring of Gyges). This is all basic introductory ethics bullshit.

If the only reason that God can provide a foundation for morality is because he can inflict supernatural rewards and punishments, then this itself doesn't provide any ethical foundation that is "intrinsic to reality". Rather, its the rewards and punishments you might receive that are important in this case, just like the other pseudo-ethical systems like law and cultural norms. Again, ethics must transcend reward and punishment. Kantian ethics attempts at least, to achieve this.

>>9423388
Sterilize or kill. Whatever you do past that point doesn't matter, so yes feel free.

>>9423371
>And?

Are you prepared for the charge of racism?

>>9423399
The notions of "reward" and "punishment" already presuppose a hierarchy of justice: egoists posit no such system.

>>9423382
It's not something mystical to believe or not believe, it's just simple biological facts we understand about other species but ignore when it comes to our own. Humans are overpopulated with no reasonable population control and that's not something that can continue indefinitely, it'll come to an end one way or another.

>>9423399
double dubs confirm busting a cap in that nigguh's ass

>>9423399
i don't think the (mono)theistic justification for morality is the punishment of hell, but the fact that, if you go by their worldview, the objectively greatest being in the universe says that these moral laws are objectively true

the morality rests on god, what does shit like utilitarianism rest on? nothing, it's just "uhhh this morality says that this is moral and let's just ignore why". Post-Nietzschean ethics would be the same way, but instead of god they rest upon "Because I will it so" (and the not-I just follow out of love and awe). Or at least that's how I understand it, feel free to prove me wrong.

File: Shocking_ Chinese people eat human baby soup to cure AIDS _ boost ___.jpg (343KB, 1431x1086px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1431x1086px

Vegetarians can riddle me this:

Killing animals to eat: Not ok.
Killing human fetus: Perfectly ok.
Eating human fetus: It's not one of your protected animals because its ok to kill, but it is meat...????

1. Humans life should always be protected.
2. Non humans animals are food.
Abandoning either of these axioms is degenerate and illogical. All other formulations of Human/Animal/Meat/Food arguments are illogical and prima facie false if you are not blind to objective reality.

Pic related (vegetarian logic)

>>9423300
You can't prove that anyone other than yourself feels anything, they could all be acting for all you know. They might not even exist. Might as well go torture your mother, I mean why not?

>>9423423
f a k e n e w s

although apparently chinks were literally too retarded to realise shark fin soup contains shark fin

>>9423399
Sure, it is perfectly comprehensible to interpret ethics as something based on reward and punishment, but then we reach a paradox. I can't prove ethics isn't based on reward and punishment, nor can you prove that it is. Literally everything can be interpreted as self-centered instead of unethical, even the most prejudicial actions done. The first part of Notes from the Underground somewhat deals with this, about how man often wishes and does harm upon himself.

But saying that the importance (imperativism) of social contract, utilitarianism, and Kantian ethics equal that of the religious ethics is a lie. With religion ethics, I must follow it all the time and try as much as possible to follow it in a way I won't be focused on reward (religion ethics has nothing to do with reward and punishment, therefore no one can actually follow it correctly, but this isn't important right now), while social contract is based entirely on fear and cohesion, even Hobbes said that.

While there is a reason for someone to follow the social contract rules, there is no reason for me to follow utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. And since social contract allows me to slaughter animals, I will do it.

>>9423431
Not an argument. Looks like someone should have been made into soup.

>>9422675
Do you rely think that just because someone don't believe in a higher power means they can't have a sense of morals / ethics?

And anyway, not eating animals, or not eating mammals at least, is objectively the right thing to do regardless of any religious, moral, or health reason, as animal agriculture is the number one contributor to destruction of environment , wasting of natural resources, and of course climate change.

This is finally starting to come into public mind, but it's slow going as the extremely powerful agricultural lobby groups have done a fantastic job of suppressing this and indoctrinating the American public.

Affordable and palatable lab grown meat can't come soon enough

File: ideology.gif (852KB, 350x214px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 350x214px

>>9423443
>muh religion of ecology
Looks like someone hasn't been reading their Zizek

>>9423423
so you think vegetarians are ok with eating human fetuses and that it's not one of their 'protected animals'? and who's to say non human animals are food, do they not deserve to exist without having a purpose to humans?

>>9423442
Not that anon but
>Looks like someone should have been made into soup.
Using this from now on thank you.

>>9423414
> it'll come to an end one way or another.
I don't doubt that humans will continue longstanding tradition of genocide, however, I don't think it'll come to an end anytime soon. However unfortunate that is for my dramatic gay ass.

>>9423423
Most vegetarians are lefties, that's why such contradictions are so common among them.

>>9423443
>Do you rely think that just because someone don't believe in a higher power means they can't have a sense of morals / ethics?

This is actually something I've been wondering about, it seems that after the collapse of religion relativism/denial of standards/morals was an inevitable next step. You have to realize that absolute morals/ethics have to come from outside ourselves, otherwise they will always be relative and questionable. If you do not believe in absolute right or wrong there is no intellectual basis for believing in any moral standards and moral decline will follow.

>>9423397
See, it's funny: you say that, but I GUARANTEE that you won't be able to eat anything while you watch me kill and butcher meat in front of you - I GUARANTEE 100% you can't do it. And I'll even kill the animal quick and clean, and you still won't be able to eat...guaranteed.

>>9423480
How do you think people ate meat before there was such a profession as a butcher you absolute downy?

People make such a big deal about suffering. It's pretty arrogant if you ask me.

>>9423450
>muh religion of ecology
What does that even mean?

No i haven't been reading him desu. Care to suggest a good place to start?

>>9422675
Kind of a stupid question, OP. You might question any of his moral positions based on his rejection of God, but you choose not to. If you take a "scientific" approach to morality then your duty is to minimise suffering and vegetarianism would fit well into that. That's not to mention the purely selfish ecological reasons.

>>9422683
>Zizek is a vegetarian

Source? Highly doubt it

t. a vegetarian

>>9423454
What logic is there for vegetarians to NOT be ok with eating human fetuses?

They are ok with killing a human fetus so it must be morally equivalent to non animals (i.e. Carrots, or cabbage). Because if a human fetus was an animal they would demand it be spared from killing.

>>9423433
He was entertaining the reward-punishment system as the foundation of ethics merely to refute the other anon's claim that it is the foundation of Christian morality and gave examples of secular systems that work the same.

If you reject the basis of a reward-punishment system (as you should) for mono-theistic/Christian morality and claim that you "must follow it all the time and try as much as possible to follow it in a way I won't be focused on reward ", then surely you can't say there is no reason for you to follow utilitarianism or Kantian ethics without going into the syntax of your faith and what differentiates it from any other belief.

>>9423490
I'm not talkin' history, pleb - I'm talkin' right now: I am a hunter, and you are not. If you watched me do my thing, you could not stomach it. Guaranteed.

>>9423493
Yeah all of his books in chronological order.

>>9423492
Word

>>9423480
Been there. Done that. Outside of smells, it's really not nearly as bad as you think it is. Depends on meat too, gamey meat is always peculiar. Although I can understand why a sheltered liberal might believe it's this grand event.

>>9423493
Ecology has become a modern religion of inhumanity. Nature is held to be the highest good, humans must subordinate themselves to it, all catastrophes are blamed on non-adherence to the ethical precepts of holy Naturalism, etc. Zizek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQbIqNd5D90

"The Sublime Object of Ideology" is probably his most famous book.

>>9423457
We've never been very good at foreseeing dramatic population drops but if you look outside of your human constructed bubble of safety and understand physics.. unsustainable population growth without a massive drop following isn't really in the realm of possibility.

Animal suffering is a non-issue, completely irrelevant.

>>9423499
muh mayne, you are clinically retarded. I'm not even joking. It's not funny, you can't think. At all. Wew.

>>9423499
You're embarrassing yourself.

>>9423505
Ok, I see that you're baiting. Carry on.

>>9423512
>We've never been very good at foreseeing dramatic population drops
As he proceeds to do just that with a hint of condescension.

>>9423515
Still not an argument.

Vegetarians place higher value on non human life than they do human life. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me not to kill a chicken when you are allowed to kill a human fetus.

>>9423496
>If you take a "scientific" approach to morality then your duty is to minimise suffering

And that's why you can't take such approach. "Minimise suffering" is a bad foundation for ethics. Do you know how to create a world without any suffering? Kill every single sensient being without causing them pain.

>>9423523
Are you really so stupid that you can't conceive of a vegetarian who is against abortion? Also, my vegetarian uncle kills chicken fetuses (eats eggs) all the time. So, yeah, you really must be that stupid.

File: 1478481437065.jpg (259KB, 1280x974px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1280x974px

>>9423507
Y-you really are a speshul kind of stupid, aren't ya, pleb? You've never killed and eaten a thing in your life. We can tell just by reading your posts, kiddo. It is clear that you are trying, desperately - but you're flailing wildly, and not using the words correctly. We can tell by your vagueness and your stupidity: I'm no sheltered libtard, moron...

>>9423523
Do you believe vegetarians are against aborting animal fetuses? Or sterilization? You can kill any fetus you want to kill.

>>9423523
Right, first off, not all vegetarians are okay with killing human fetuses. Secondly, those who are might hold that ethical system for reasons completely independent of food.

Listen, I know you think your argument is more sophisticated, but I assure you muh mayne, you are precisely this retarded.

>>9423539
*giggles*
zaddii if u wanted to roleplay u should've just said :3

>>9423530
I agree. Even though I'm an atheist I accept that there cannot really be a moral absolute without God. I just don't understand why OP is buttflustered about a (specious) Zizek quote when it is cohesive with the rest of his thought

>>9423523
Shit argument. I'm a vegetarian and I think abortion should be severely limited. I'm sure you have the strawman of a liberal hipster in your mind when you make these generalisations

>>9423509
He doesn't object to the concept per se; his objection is to the mindless ideology of it. Objectively it is true that we are part of nature and can never escape it: that's just fundamental reality. Zizek objects to only the mindless ideology. See reality, not ideology, and you will be fine...

>>9423532
>vegetarian who is against abortion
Would at least be a step towards logical consistency. But, no I have never met such a person. Have you?

Your uncle is eating a chicks menstruation, not a fetus. The egg was not fertilized. I feel like if you don't have at least this much biological knowledge we might not be able to communicate meaningfully.

>>9423555
He literally says in the video "nature doesn't exist." To say "Objectively it is true that we are part of nature and can never escape it" is to say "Objectively we are subject to God and can never escape Him." You have now transferred an abstract notion into lived reality: congrats, you're spooked, or in Zizekian terms, possess an unconscious ideology.

>>9423523
Do you believe we have a moral duty to like our own species? Prove it.

>>9423554
>severely limited
So you are still ok with killing a living organism but not that one based on its proximity to its gestation location, but not based on its species?

>>9423530
I don't see anything wrong with that. You can't prove life has any intrinsic value.

>>9423558
>I've never met them so they don't exist
Sure thing brodie
>nitpicking
So you're saying that if the egg had been fertilized it would be immoral to eat it?

>>9423523
This is a troll - stop feeding him (You)s.
>>9423545
See? A troll. When btfo'd, he reverts to his natural childish state.

Is Zizek going crazy? Why would anyone not be a canibal, except for religious or health reasons?
If you don't believe in any higher power, if you think things simply "are", then why do you think it's immoral to slaughter and torture humans to satiate our hunger? If things simply "are", then there is no true morality. Even if you're christian, you can gladly eat all sorts of people. Of course, we could eat other things, but I would NEVER trade a good human rib with marrow for animal surrogate. And I would gladly visit a slaughterhouse, and thank everyone there for producing such high quality meat.

>>9423569
I'm on a transitory period between atheism and something else. My morals are up in the air right now. Saying I did accept Christianity I would still retain my vegetarianism. I guess the materialist argument would be that while an animal has a central nervous system and can measurably feel pain, an embryo has developed no such capacity for pain.

>>9423558
Get a load of this retard. Muh mayne, you are ill.

Ponder on all the other responses you got so far. There are vegetarians that oppose abortion and no, there is no dichotomy between those who aren't and vegetarianism unless the reason for their diet is weirdly and exclusively based on the development of a fetus into an animal offspring. I'm sure that breed of vegetarians is even more rare.

I believe eating meat is a moral duty because the pleasure gained from meat eating, for a human, has more value than the amount of suffering that that animal had to go through.

>>9423592
Do you have objective measurements for that? Seems unlikely.
Also, are you a hedonist?

>>9423592
If you have enough mental will you can control what you pleasure

>>9423565
Why are you desperately trying to fill reality with some notion of God? A-are you ill? D-do you see this 'God' everywhere you look?? Is everything big, and other, and scary, 'God' to you?
A-are you six??? Do you need a hug and a safe place?
You gotta stop hanging around /lit/ so much, yer brain is almost cooked....

>>9423587
>mayne.

I'm not looking for a dichotomy of peoples, I'm looking at the contradiction of the logic. Killing humans is legal if the state does it (capital punishment, police, military) Killing unborn humans is ok if the mother does it. Killing animals is bad because ???? Society has determined that human life isn't worth protecting but we should believe that the poor beasts are deserving of protection?

>>9423577
Sorry meant to quote >>9423539

>>9423596

Do you mean chemically? No. But I don't think going the chemical route is the correct answer in this situation. I would not trust neuroscience in the slightest.

Hedonist, no.

>>9423603

Completely agree, but that would take time and/or energy, and that spent energy is still worth more than global animal suffering.

Edgy I guess, but I do not think the concept of ''suffering'' applies to other animals, pain maybe, but suffering no.

>>9423496
I'm not sure which doc it was, but in one the filmmaker takes him to a movie store to buy a movie and then they go to a cafe, where Zizek can't order any food because there aren't any vegetarian options.

>>9423604
Not the person you're replying to, but I think these days we could ALL use a hug and a safe place :(

File: 1478627258254.png (29KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x275px

>>9423592
>>9423612
>>9423618

there's only so much of this world that i can hold myself personally responsible for

>>9422711
Dumbest argument ever.

>>9423499
so all vegetarians are ok with killing a human fetus? you're retarded

>>9423612
Yes, I was suggesting that you support a false dichotomy of ideas. Don't know where you got people.

Muh mayne, you really are retarded, no joke the things you enumerated are non sequiturs. Please revisit previous responses. My patience has come to an end and I'm not virtuous enough to continue this conversation in good faith.

>>9423624
That's what these idiots prey upon, friend. Stay strong and don't respond to stupid - stupid is just lonely and sad and NOT deserving of a hug.

>>9423625

>Views contrary to mines are baits

Convenient I guess, are you the same guy asking for safe spaces in Universities?

>>9423627
But considering what you choose to purchase and consume is a pretty small ask, no?

>>9423636
He never had any good faith himself.

So Assad and ISIS can just kill humans all day and night and nobody wants to even try and stop that slaughter of human life, but we are supposed to cry for the plight of the cows? How does society pick what animals are ok to slaughter. Seems like being a human isn't a protected class of animal after all.

>>9423618
If you believe that personal pleasure is the justification for your immoral action, then what are you but a hedonist?

If you believe that your pleasure outweighs the pain, then what basis is this on other than chemical?

>>9423479
>You have to realize that absolute morals/ethics have to come from outside ourselves, otherwise they will always be relative and questionable.
Yes, I agree. They do have to come from outside ourselves. But why does this necessitate a believe in a so called higher power in your mind? I find this paradoxical; If the very concept of a higher power ( God) is a human construct, which it is, then that means morality derived from god is NOT beyond ourselves, which you are arguing for.

>If you do not believe in absolute right or wrong there is no intellectual basis for believing in any moral standards and moral decline will follow.
once again I agree, but I fail to see the necessity of a higher power. How can you think like this when the nations with the highest standards of living and satisfaction in the world are overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic? If the societal framework stems from law, which stems from ethics, which stems from morality then obviously these primarily atheist countries are getting their sense of morality from something other than a belief in a higher power. (Hint: humans evolved to cooperate in communities.. a large part of our right and wrong faculties do indeed come from nature)


>>9423509
>Ecology has become a modern religion of inhumanity. Nature is held to be the highest good, humans must subordinate themselves to it, all catastrophes are blamed on non-adherence to the ethical precepts of holy Naturalism, etc
Son, I have news for you... we ARE subordinate to nature, that's a fact. Last time I checked we all have to obey the laws of the natural realm expressed in our physics, so how the fuck can anyone argue that we aren't subordinate to nature. The human hubris of thinking that we're somehow above nature will be our downfall... the reasonable thing to do is see us and nature as one unified reality in the cosmos, such as we can find harmony in our place in it rather than attempt to dominate it.
Of course not all catastrophes are our fault though

>>9423642
>what you choose
CAUGHT YOU BITCH.
Choice is an illusion.

File: 1478628502900.png (74KB, 171x278px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 171x278px

He's still trying! Oh, such a lonely pleb...

>>9423647
you know people can care about two things at once right?

@>>9423652
Stop being so obvious.

>>9423651
Wrong. Free choice is an illusion. Your choice is still reliant on contingent factors, and my posts are a small (possibly negative) influence

>>9423647
you got us good. human fetus soup was less obvious.

>>9423662

So you are denying him his free choice with your negatively influencing posts. Why are you vegetarians such fascists?

File: 1487710355134.png (566KB, 890x388px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 890x388px

>>9423648
>>9423650
>>9423653
Stahp feeding the one lonely troll - he's just baiting!

>>9423648

Maybe I should have used the word 'goodness' or 'utility'. The advantages gotten from eating meat are not exclusive to the immediate pleasure in eating it, they are personal as well as social and have some benefic effects across society.

>your immoral action

Begging the question.

>If you believe that your pleasure outweighs the pain, then what basis is this on other than chemical?

See above, I don't mean 'pleasure' in the chemical sense.

>>9423670
You think people go to the park with a bag of stale bread and don't want to feed the ducks? Where do you think we are anon?

>>9423671
>'goodness' or 'utility'.
For what purpose? To what end? By what measure?
You know that 'goodness' and 'utility' are ideological conceptions, right? You've brought us right back around to selfish chemical pleasure......

>How could you possibly choose to not hurt an animal when you have the possibility to do so, I just don't get it!

>>9423663
Sounds like someone who doesn't like the sound of their cognitive dissonance. Into the soup you go.

>>9423670
There's always a chance he's genuinely stupid.
>>9423668
>denying him free choice
But isn't it my free will to comment?
>>9423671
>Utility
But you live longer with a vegetarian diet. The social effects (if we're talking mass farming) are wholly negative.
>Pleasure
If we follow your idea of pleasure then eating meat is a societal and personal displeasure. Consider at what point you move your moral position to justify your self-serving pleasure principle; your hedonism

wait, there has been an axiomatic ontology established ?? since when did this happen/
I think it's childish to persist with these wrongfully contrived axiomatic beliefs.
The weak man will beg for mercy as reality picks up its sword; your imaginative rules do not apply to what is out of your control.

File: 1284817296509.gif (3MB, 317x238px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 317x238px

>>9423674
Fair 'nuff - so long as you're knowingly feeding him, and not letting him get to you. I hate when trolls think they win....

>>9423689
>free will
There you go again. You are now a soup baby. Simmer simmer. Dash of salt for you.

File: 1478558962092.jpg (11KB, 320x272px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x272px

>>9423689
>we can only hope he's genuinely stupid
kek

>>9423700
Poor reading of determinism my man. Looks like you've conflated it with fatalism

>>9423604
This is not "reality," friend, and neither is "reality" natural.

Although I am likely responding to bait.

>>9423509
Thanks for that vid. I can now safely conclude that Zizek is a complete retard.

What an idiot.

>>9423709
The only -ism I ascribe to is babysoupism.

>>9423683

Are you trying to imply that pain and pleasure aren't also ideological conceptions?

>>9423689

No, not that kind of social effects. Every act of meat eating reaffirms man's position as above that of animal and freezes the relation in a power relationship where man is the master and animal the slave. This relationship, for human civilization, is both necessary and beneficial.

>>9423650
If we were subordinate to this thing you call "nature," we wouldn't be constantly inventing and reinventing physical laws.
>The human hubris of thinking that we're somehow above nature will be our downfall
>such as we can find harmony in our place in it rather than attempt to dominate it.
The epitome of a religious statement, right here.

>>9422675

What if I told you that one doesn't necessarily have to believe that non-human animals are "endowed" with some kind of "rights", or that we should follow absolutely strict utilitarian discipline and sweep the bugs from our path, in order to be vegetarian?

I am a strict vegetarian myself, but out of virtue ethics.

I see animals being farmed for meat, deprived of either a life of leisure or a life at least in keeping with their natural disposition; they are often kept in conditions dreary, lacking in stimulation, cramped, painful, industrially dirty.

I see not necessary an equal, but at least another living being, often even a fellow mammal, who probably feels something similar to my sensation of pain, probably has likes and dislikes, probably has a similar evolutionary urge to reproduce, to eat, to engage in bodily pleasures and - depending on the specific mammal - perhaps even enjoy friendship.

And, knowing this, when I see *myself* enjoying the fruits of their condition, what is it that I see? Rather base instincts, really. I believe that by abstaining from animal flesh on the basis of an empathetic interest in the cause of animals whose conditions I described, I cultivate in myself certain virtues (among these being temperance, charity, kindness, and humility), which helps to make me a better individual, and more importantly, makes me more pleasant company and more likely to experience positive relationships with other people.

>>9423650
>then that means morality derived from god is NOT beyond ourselves, which you are arguing for.
No, it means exactly what was stated. The point stands regardless of human construction. Morality then is relative, for if a higher power has never existed, and it's completely in our own realm of creation, morality stands as relative, or as the rule by that of the strongest.
I get what you're trying to achieve, but it's nothing profound, and I believe most to have already considered this...
>we ARE subordinate to nature
So wait, is a higher power not just a mere human construct then? Did we actually derive it from nature, which in some cases is synonymous with god?

>>9423724
>being vegetarian makes me better
lol

I don't give a fuck about animals you stupid moral fucks nor is there any reason too

>>9423741
/thread

>>9423738
Makes me better than I was prior, yes. I didn't say it makes me better than other people, or that it is better to be vegetarian than to take up other causes, merely that on the whole, on it's own, I think it improves my moral character.

Why do you autists have such a problem with avoiding factory farm produced meat?

>>9423700
kek, are you really the soup guy. because I don't disagree with you on this one.
>>9423709
are you a compatibilist? if so please attempt to explain it to me.

You morons don't you know that you are what you eat? By eating ferocious animals I gain their traits and eventually will become superhuman

>>9423753
what? most of us don't have such a problem

The only way I can eat meat and not be complicit in animal torture is to personally guarantee that not only the meat I ate, but ALL MEAT FOR SALE, did not undergo torture (as defined by... someone).

What you're saying is, since that's not a realistic goal, I should hedge my bets and just skip it altogether to protect myself from blame.

I don't care about animals, just that I might be labeled as an animal torturer.

I could eat meat and not be an animal torturer. I haven't once tortured an animal. I would prefer the meat I eat not be tortured.

So why was it okay for us to eat animals thousands of years ago but not today? Are you fags really going to condemn your ancestors for not being sissies?

>>9423755
This is soup poster. There can be only one. You have been spared from the vegetarian baby soup.

>>9423763
Animals would torture you so there's no reason not to assert your dominance

This thread is sad. Men are a dying breed.

>>9423748
>I think it improves my moral character.
He said as he ordered his ground forces to take France.

>>9423765
Most of my ancestors didn't have the economic means to not eat meat.

Also, what's wrong with disagreeing with my ancestors ideas and ideals? I probably would disagree on most of what they thought.

>>9423052
This guy gets it.

>>9423782
Agriculture was around for ages

>>9423781

Keto Hitler IS slightly less moral than Vegetarian Hitler

>>9423720
>If we were subordinate to this thing you call "nature," we wouldn't be constantly inventing and reinventing physical laws.
Physical laws are tools that we use to describe and define our natural world. Our laws must conform to nature, not the other way around... there's no way you can be this dumb lol

>The epitome of a religious statement, right here.
Not sure what you mean by that but maybe i can clarify. By nature I'm referring to all that exists in the planets, cosmos, universe, everything. By "finding harmony in our place with nature" I mean finding a way to continue to exist and flourish along with everything else, because if you can't exist effectively in the environment you find yourself in well then, you cease to exist don't you. If we think we are dominant over nature such that we pay no heed to pollution, climate change, etc, then we'll end up altering out environment in such a way that it will make continued existence for us difficult, because we're suddenly changing something that we've evolved to exist in, an environment that's been in same state for tens of thousands of years, only ever changeing very slowly on the human scale. I'm arguing that the basis for a morality, or at least a successful one, is one that helps us (an thus our morality) continue to flourish and exist, which is true by definition. You can argue about god or a higher power or whatever, but you can't really argue for existence

>>9423771
I genuinely like you. You're such a jovial troll.

Being a vegetarian is just a pathetic way to make you feel better about yourself.

>>9423052
>interrupt a casual conversation about tv shows with a random rambling about the categorical imperative

Maybe you're the one who's not funny at parties, rather than everyone else?

>>9423788
Well then, I guess I disagree with them, yes.

>>9423782
That is why your ancestors weep. They sweat and bled so you could ascend to dominate all life and you revert to the diet of a tree shrew.

>>9423755
>compatibalist
No, I don't think that position really exists. I'm too stupid to explain what I mean, but I suggest you look up Schopenhauers take on determinism.

>>9423779
So according to you, paying other people money to keep animals in tiny cages and then kill and butcher them, then ship you the meat, is manly?
What's manly about that? You run zero risk.
I can sort-of see how, say, fighting a tiger armed with a sword would be manly.
The meat industry, manly? No.

>>9423799
>That is why your ancestors weep.
Most of them are dead, the others are doing fine actually.

>>9423763
You know what? I feel like some of you may not take my post seriously.

Let me say it here and now: Torturing animals is wrong! STOP TORTURING ANIMALS!

Ah fuck, they didn't stop. Alright then.

I won't purchase your tortured animal meat!

Ah fuck, they didn't stop then either.

So you're telling me, between the first situation and the second situation, nothing changed?

How complicit was I in this animal torture anyways? It seems like I quite literally have nothing to do with the continued torture of animals. Well, aside from those tortured by my own hand, which I already said I abstain from no matter what.

>>9423790
>slightly
This soup is slightly too salty, better add some moe babies.

>>9423811
You not purchasing tortured animal meat doesn't stop the meat industry, but it does hurt it to a small but real extent.

>>9423806
It's about human dominance over every other creature on this planet. They exist only to serve us

>>9423805
>your relative is being turned to sausage five feet away and you're standing around like it's another day in the pasture
if you're this fucking stupid and evolutionarily maladapted maybe you don't deserve to not be eaten

>>9423718
Man is the master of animals because of man's technological and organizational prowess, not because man performs mastery rituals.

Vegetarians don't even seem to realize that the fucking Earth doesn't give a shit about their precious animals. Come on why aren't you guys out there protesting gaia to stop being cruel?

>>9423819
Another day, another 4chan sociopath.

>>9423826
oh wait i think it's a photoshop lol

>>9423830
Because gaia cannot be reached by means of persuasion, whereas people can. Are you always this stupid?
By the way, I'm a vegetarian and I don't protest anything. I just avoid eating meat.

>>9423827

You underestimate the power of symbols. The ritual of eating meat is essential to maintaining in public mind the idea of man's endless superiority.

>>9423834
If that's what you call a sociopath and most people on this planet are sociopaths because most people are fine with zoos

>>9423793
Right, but you're pre-defining as natural all that conforms to what you call "natural laws" (i.e. you're employing tautology). Your so called natural laws also govern artifice (cars, buildings, etc.). Rather than being "natural" laws, it is more accurate to call them "human laws describing nature."

I can argue that the "us" to which you are referring (the human species) is absolutely nothing to me. Regardless of the alleged "consequences" of "my actions," I will continue to behave as it suits me to behave. I would give up something beneficial to me for the "sake of the species" or the "sake of the planet" as little as I would give it up for the "sake of God." The consequences of "human activity" are not the consequences of my activity.

Further, your definition of "continued existence" is only fraught with such difficulty because you cleave to a precapitalist notion of how nature "ought to be." I am perfectly content to live in a heap of garbage: in that environment I can "exist effectively." The morality you advocate does nothing for me, so I discard it.

>>9423837
>Because gaia cannot be reached by means of persuasion
Giving up already eh

>>9423814
hahahdasdhahahahha. you need to keep this going. you need to force the baby analogy into any thread that touches on ethics.

>>9423790
>Keto Hitler
Your face when Keto Hitler would have ruled Germany in peace for 40 years and landed men on the Moon by 1960, prevented the cold war by offering a stable third pillar, and won the Nobel Peace Prize for preventing human genocide all over the world. Eating a steak makes you genuinely love and appreciate your fellow man.

I wonder if they had to make baby soup in the camps for survival reasons?

Why are meat eaters so offended by the idea of vegetarianism that they go out of their way to judge someone's personal life choices? I never talk about by dietary habits unless directly asked about them, but whenever I mention I'm vegetarian I'm always coerved to undergo some semi-heavy debating about why I choose to live that way.

Is it the implication that because I do something for moral reasons, and you don't, that I will think less of you? Are you afraid of being judged, or why is there always this autistic debate (along with the cliche belitteling of my manliness, and trying to lead me into logical deadends as seen in this thread), instead of just shrugging it of and accepting that people lead a different life than you do?

>>9423819
you say that, but a good 25% of the animals on this planet would kill your ass if they felt like it

you as a naked monkey man in the woods are quite useless and weak

which is why i don't feel bad. to say that i have some responsibility to 'spare' the little creatures would imply i have some kind of inborn dominance over them. i don't.

>>9423855
but most people defend vegetarianism here. homosexuality is indefensible.

>>9423731
>No, it means exactly what was stated. The point stands regardless of human construction. Morality then is relative, for if a higher power has never existed, and it's completely in our own realm of creation, morality stands as relative, or as the rule by that of the strongest.
I think I see what you're getting at, but can you define what you mean by "higher power" here? Also can you be more specific about "the rule by that of the strongest"?

>I get what you're trying to achieve, but it's nothing profound, and I believe most to have already considered this...
Not trying to be "profound". just trying to be true

>we ARE subordinate to nature
>So wait, is a higher power not just a mere human construct then? Did we actually derive it from nature, which in some cases is synonymous with god?
Don't know what you're saying here. If it's useful for you to think of nature as "the higher power" then sure, go for it. I'm saying a large part of our morality has indeed come from nature, which is a fact

File: 10le6d.jpg (110KB, 1080x1081px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1080x1081px

>Vegetarians

>>9423419

What makes god more reliable as a foundation for ethics than a principle such as utility? If I don't believe in some form of divinity, there is literally nothing that inherently makes an ethics based on religion preferable. Adding "because god said so" doesn't add anything substantial to an ethical imperative.

>>9423855
You seem to be ignoring the folks ITT who believe that not being a vegetarian is "immoral." This is why a discussion is occurring: multiple people with conflicting opinions are posting.

I'm not offended by it, stop eating meat if you want to, but don't expect the same from me.

>>9423874
>You seem to be ignoring the folks ITT who believe that not being a vegetarian is "immoral.
That would be the natural implication of being a vegetarian for ethical reasons. But why do you get so aggressive about it?

>>9423872
>If I don't believe in some form of divinity
obviously if you don't believe in god the whole thing falls apart you fucking mong

and christian morality rests on god
secular moralities like utalitarianism don't rest on anything, they come up with principles to justify themselves

>>9423872
beautiful anon. watch his answer shift away from a secular argument now.

>>9423857
I'm not saying we have inborn dominance. I'm saying that we spent ages fighting our way up and we should keep it that way. All being a vegetarian amounts to, is throwing away millennia of effort

>>9423855
I'm disgusted by anyone doing anything for moral reasons.

>>9423872
>>9423885
like I was saying, he can't resist it: >>9423883

>>9423866
>but most people defend vegetarianism here. homosexuality is indefensible.
Vegetarians are gay though

>>9423882
Isn't thinking that someone is behaving immorally thinking less of them? You believe a meat eater to be a moral criminal.

>>9423900
To be fair I think vegetarians are pathetic cucks so it evens out

>>9423894
how am I not talking secularly

do you think I'm a christian or what lol

>>9423890
what? he was arguing against vegetarianism. his mental gymnastics were at least good sophistry, you're simply a retard muh mayne

>>9423900
Yeah sure. But if I'm not actively moralizing you, why would you care about my opinion about you?

>>9423899
will give you that.

>>9423573
>You can't prove life has any intrinsic value.
Just like you can't "prove" that suffering is intrinsically bad.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 243x207px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 243x207px

>>9423906
says the nu male

Fuck you guys so what if I derive pleasure from hunting animals? I'm not a psycho

>>9423916
you are retarded pham. you were arguing with someone while unaware of being on the same side. not defensible. that guy does kind of look like me though.

>>9423907
Well, you're meta-moralizing right now, i.e. you're implying that it's morally wrong to give a moral opinion if you're not actively being moralized. You are engaging in a passive, implicit sort of moralizing, e.g. "That would be the natural implication of being a vegetarian for ethical reasons."

You believe my actions are immoral (even up to the action of questioning your morality), but instead of coming right out and saying so, you allude to immorality with a description of deductive necessity.

You don't take into account that even when you're actively moralizing me (e.g. right now), I don't care about your opinion. In fact, I care about it less precisely because of its ethically censuring nature.

>>9423619
Dude no, he says one of the filmcrew won't be able to eat the food, re-watch "Zizek!".

>>9422675
>Why would anyone be a vegetarian, except for religious or health reasons?
Lol wut? I knows tons of vegans and vegetarians and all (but two) are for moral reasons, while being outspoken 'atheists' (this is a Zizek thread after all).

In fact, they claim it's my Christian beliefs that establishes a 'false' dichotomy between humans and animals which that allows me to eat meat with a happy conscience.

It's actually mostly hedonism but whatever.

>>9422675
>And I would gladly visit a slaughterhouse
Trust me, you wouldn't.

>>9423842
>Right, but you're pre-defining as natural all that conforms to what you call "natural laws" (i.e. you're employing tautology).
No, when did I do that? There's a lot out there that our natural laws are yet unable to describe, perhaps things that we might never be able to describe in our present form of natural laws
>Your so called natural laws also govern artifice (cars, buildings, etc.).
your point?
>Rather than being "natural" laws, it is more accurate to call them "human laws describing nature."
Sure, I can along with that

>I can argue that the "us" to which you are referring (the human species) is absolutely nothing to me. Regardless of the alleged "consequences" of "my actions," I will continue to behave as it suits me to behave. I would give up something beneficial to me for the "sake of the species" or the "sake of the planet" as little as I would give it up for the "sake of God."
False.The human species is not absolutely nothing to you because for one, you are human and are part of humanity, and two, you're interacting with another human right now (me), so how can you interact with absolutely nothing?

>The consequences of "human activity" are not the consequences of my activity.
but the consequences of your activity are part of the consequences of human activity so yes, they partially are (assuming your'e human)

>Further, your definition of "continued existence" is only fraught with such difficulty because you cleave to a precapitalist notion of how nature "ought to be." I am perfectly content to live in a heap of garbage: in that environment I can "exist effectively." The morality you advocate does nothing for me, so I discard it.
That's great for you, but if everyone suddenly had the same sense of morality as you then everyone would live in filth and garbage and would get diseases as the world crumbles around them... they would die soon enough. Your sense of morality, or lack thereof, would die with those who hold it, making it objectively a poor moral framework.

I think you're just a well veiled troll at this point

>>9423904
Christian morality rests on faith.

you are right in saying absolutes are only compatible with god, but there is a huge leap from that to theism.

>>9423934
>, but instead of coming right out and saying so, you allude to immorality with a description of deductive necessity.
But this is exactly behaviour vegetarians are reproached for in public space. It seems to me that you find it somehow unacceptable that people think of things you do or believe as being immoral while being absolutely non-invasive about it towards you, which is a bit silly tee bee eytch.

>>9423929
>that guy does kind of look like me though
Anon that's not a good thing. Do you know who that is?

>>9423872
>What makes god more reliable as a foundation for ethics than a principle such as utility?

Because I can consider utility meaningless. X is useful, but why am I obligated to desire what is useful? Useful for what? To keep me alive? What if I deny that life has intrinsic value?
A theist can't consider God meaningless because accepting the concept of God implies, in first place, accepting the idea of the good (in a platonic sense).

>>9422675

You've completely misread the passage, I'm afraid. Stick to science fiction or whatever drivel you usually "read," and leave philosophy for the adults.

>>9423960
no. won't reverse search it, but will take pleasure in your reveal.

I don't wear glasses, my hair is curly and much richer and I have a stronger jawline. I know it seems like I'm saying I look like the guy if the guy had a different head, but you'd get what I mean if you knew.

Lay it on me

>>9423944
>No, when did I do that? There's a lot out there that our natural laws are yet unable to describe, perhaps things that we might never be able to describe in our present form of natural laws
Then you admit that all human activity does not exist within the frame work of "natural law," and that our laws do not "conform to nature." The construct must first exist in the human brain before it can be applied. I can conjure any number of laws that don't conform to actual "reality," if you want to admit of such a notion. They may be useless, but they are extant constructs in the same way that useful human-made laws regarding nature are extant, according to you.
>False.The human species is not absolutely nothing to you because for one, you are human and are part of humanity, and two, you're interacting with another human right now (me), so how can you interact with absolutely nothing?
I may be human, but is this the extent of my totality? The "I" always takes precedence over the quality of it, otherwise, you fail to account for uniqueness. Also, I am not interacting with a human right now, I am interacting with a keyboard and a monitor that approximate written human communication. Further, an individual human is not the same thing as "humanity," and the notion of "an individual human" is not the same thing as an actual, living, non-representational human (the thing that I can't convey through writing). I interact with absolutely nothing in the same way you're doing it right now: by entertaining the idea.

The rest of your post hinges on the notion of my belonging to the idea of the "human race," so I don't think it's necessary to take that apart. Although, to be clear, I'm not espousing any kind of morality: I'm actively dismantling yours.

>>9422675

Honestly, how did you read that and think vegetarianism was the point of the argument and not to give an example of fetishistic disavowal?

>>9423958
>It seems to me that you find it somehow unacceptable that people think of things you do or believe as being immoral while being absolutely non-invasive about it towards you,

It's not "unacceptable," i.e. I accept that it will happen, but that doesn't mean I have to adhere to your smarmy, passive-aggressive notion of how to moralize to people. There is no way for a person's morality to be "non-invasive": if it is morality in a meaningful sense, you will orient your action around it.

File: Anthony Burch.jpg (4KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 299x168px

>>9423971

>>9423987
>being outspoken about your believes is moralizing people
>keeping your believes to yourself and acting on them in private is passive aggressively moralizing people
Jesus Kafka Christ, get me out of here.

>>9422675
This is the first time I've ever seen someone post a clearly written and concise quote from Zizek and follow it with a redundant, misconstrued, and tangential line of questioning.
This is backwards day as fuck.

>>9423996
Again, you're going to act on them in public and in private, if they're your meaningful morality. And, yes, "being outspoken about your beliefs" is the definition of "moralizing."

>>9423993
I see. Resemblance would indeed be worrying. I think I'm safe though.

>>9424004
>Again, you're going to act on them in public and in private, if they're your meaningful morality
That seems kind of far fetched, because it assumes that just because I believe something to have a moral value, I also must believe it has the same moral value to you, or that my moralizing justifies impeding on your own personal judgement or believes.

>>9422675
Someone tell Zizek that once you go through enough /b/ gore threads you hardly feel anything

>>9424016
No, I'm only talking about you at the moment. Even if you think morality is relative, you will still act on your own "subjective" morality whether it's publicly or privately.

I don't understand the comment about "my moralizing justifies impeding on your own personal judgement." "Moralizing" as per its definition is an assertion that your judgement (specifically moral) is better than mine.

>>9422675
That got my blood pumping

>>9423975

>Then you admit that all human activity does not exist within the frame work of "natural law,"
Not sure what you're asking. What do you mean "all human activity" ? When you say natural law, are you talking about our human laws of nature, or the absolute natural realm encompassing everything we know and beyond?

and that our laws do not "conform to nature."
They don't perfectly conform to nature though, but our natural laws are by far the best thing we have to describe it.


The construct must first exist in the human brain before it can be applied. I can conjure any number of laws that don't conform to actual "reality," if you want to admit of such a notion. They may be useless, but they are extant constructs in the same way that useful human-made laws regarding nature are extant, according to you.
What's your point? If you think about jumping from a tall building, you could conjure realities in which you fly away into the clouds, fall through the earth and land in China, or fall to your death and cease to exist. Only one of those "constructs" is useful and, for all intents and purposes, correct.

>Also, I am not interacting with a human right now, I am interacting with a keyboard and a monitor that approximate written human communication. Further, an individual human is not the same thing as "humanity," and the notion of "an individual human" is not the same thing as an actual, living, non-representational human (the thing that I can't convey through writing). I interact with absolutely nothing in the same way you're doing it right now: by entertaining the idea.
You're just being silly now. Revisit your definition of nothing

>Although, to be clear, I'm not espousing any kind of morality: I'm actively dismantling yours.
Well why didn't you say so! I'll sum it for ya then: I exist, and in order to continue existing it makes sense to assume other things and beings beyond me exist and experience an existence not totally different than mine.Thus it makes sense to adopt a morality that is conducive to continued existence not just for myself, but for everything else that exists upon which my existence depends on. If you want to find a leap of faith in there then go ahead and point out that I'm assuming that existence is good if that gets you off

>>9424037
Consider this: I can believe killing or hurting animals is unjust if I can live a life without doing so, but I can at the same time believe that this does not implore me to keep other humans from killing or hurting animals, because I value their subjective individuality higher than my personal moral believes.

This means I can think my moral judgement is better than yours, without having to moralize you.

Vegetarians create a false dichotomy between animal and plant life. Fruits and vegetables are living organisms. They don't exists for your disgusting consumption. Frits and vegetables should not be robbed from the earth where they can grow and live and die as nature intended and produced on your disgusting farms with treated sewage water. Vegetarians may as well eat human fetus soup they are so insensitive to the precious nature of living organisms.

>>9424206
aren't fruits literally only made to be eaten though

God, fetus-soup troll is still here....shit, bois - leave the poor turd alone!

Oh noes! Fetus soup troll gone byebye? B-but y-you were winning!

Soups up!

>>9424255
>>9424293
>>9424317
You're not going to attract any more attention, this thread's already gone past the bump limit. Its trolling utility is gone.

>>9424321
The baby soup will simmer forever!

>>9424321
Hope you had fun having your ass handed to you.

>>9424321
You can smell the dorito dust and sweat from here...

>>9424346
It's the first post I made in the thread dude, jeez.

>>9424355
rude, I'm currently eating lettuce.

>>9424368
You know what goes great with that, a hot bowl of baby soup. I will scoop extra baby chunks for you.

File: adorable.jpg (54KB, 605x454px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 605x454px

So desperate for (You)s!
Git goad, faget.

No soup for (You)!

Dance, summermonkey!

>>9422762
>statement is falsifiable

"The principle of equality requires that ones suffering is counted as equal with any other being"

Tell us on what grounds is this equality based and justified on?

>>9422835
>>9422807
>Eating meat is really hard to justify philosophically

What do you think rights are anon? Do you think they are some mystical and divine law we discovered or simply constructed rules of conduct that have changed over time in accordance with their subjective man made origin?

Bonus time

Vegans and vegetrains are just as arbitrary when it comes to rights.

"How do you argue against someone that wants to murder billioins of bacteria, insects and viruses without being vulnerable to the same argument regarding chickens, cows. etc? I mean, you can do it but it's not nearly as convincing as killing yourself, from a philosophical standpoint"

this was a fun thread