hi
as the original statement you posted about is does not disagree with your position. "Humans were not meant to be vegan" is consistent with "humans were not meant to be vegan or non-vegan."
because of the floating word "is", i suppose that you had started to write something else, so let's hope i'm answering the right comment
"humans were not meant to be vegans" is quite different from "humans were not meant to be vegan or non-vegan."
i know that language is imperfect but i'm pretty sure that the poster will agree that by "humans were not meant to be vegans", he meant "humans were meant to be non-vegans"
anyone can see that all morals are subjective
Neither I nor the majority of the human race can see that
ok, well, i meant anyone who thinks about it
i know that most people don't realize it
morals are different from each culture to another. that should be enough to prove that they are subjective
2 opposite values that exclude each other can't both be right
ex : "girls should not go to school" vs "everyone should go to school"
but another way to show that morals are subjective is to ask to prove objectively some of the values that seem most obvious to us
can you prove me that "you shouldn't kill" is an objective value?
i can't
i'm playing the devil's advocate here, but in the following conversation i don't see an objective argument for not killing, from the point of view of b (which happens to be in minority but could very well not be, and it is not a reason to discard it anyway)
person a : you shouldn't kill
person b : why?
a : it goes against people's will to live
b : i don't care
a : you should
b : why?
a : you wouldn't want to be killed
b : you don't know. anyway, i don't see why i shouldn't do what i wouldn't like to be done to me
a : you will have to face the consequences
b : i choose to
a : it's harmful to the evolution of our species
b : i hate our species
a : it makes people suffer
b : i don't feel any empathy
etc.
we all have different systems of thoughts
some are shared by many, but that doesn't make them objective
if someone tells me that he wouldn't torture an animal but eats meat, i'll point out that he's not being rational
but if someone else (i have a friend in mind) tells me "i just don't care if they suffer", then i have absolutely no argument against his behaviour
some people have empathy in their genes, others don't
i can't blame them or try to reason them
To hold that the amelioration of suffering is preferable to the infliction of it is a moral statement.
we may just have a different understanding of words here, but i don't see it as a moral statement in the fact that i don't see the opposite opinion as inferior as mine
i was randomly born with a strong feeling of empathy
but i understand quite well (probably because of that empathy, by the way) how others don't feel it. and although according to my paradigm it would be positive if they did, i don't have arguments to objectively argue that my paradigm is better than others
pretty much: we have to paint the world
you like brown. it's obvious to me that blue looks better than brown
i'll try to make you paint it blue. but i know there's no objective reason to say that blue is better
Are you an emotivist, by chance?It is justifiable only by morality
i don't know what it is. i'll look it up and answer, but not now because i need to sleep
It is justifiable only by morality
many things that could be seen as morally driven by others may not be so.
there are vegans who are just obsessed by their own well-being through a healthy diet. there aren't any morals involved in this case
I do not think a desire for the optimally just treatment of animals makes the position universally applicable, since that would prohibitively raise the cost of meat/dairy/eggs
the high price of "better treated" animals actually comes from the lack of demand for these products
if more people asked for them, the producers could reduce their prices