1/ "Logic", huh? OK. <cracks knuckles> Let's dig in.https://twitter.com/NHpilled/status/1497975616787955718 …
-
-
4/ What are some of the traits in which dogs and apples differ, which might be relevant to our considerations of morality? Consciousness, intelligence, ability to feel pain, ability to solve problems, ability to read facial expressions, ability to engage in teamwork...
Show this thread -
5/ Let's say that we can enumerate one or two dozen possible candidates. Presumably the distinction between the morality of eating apples and dogs is one or more of these criteria. Which ones? I've thought about this long and hard, having first contemplated the ethics >
Show this thread -
6/ of eating meat when I first met a cow, f2f, and decided "yes, this animal seems really stupid and while I wouldn't want it to suffer pain, I also do not have any intuition that it's life is sacrosanct." I poked at the idea for decades, and eventually decided that my own
Show this thread -
7/ ethics prevented eating dogs because dogs are part of the human community. They have co-evolved with humans for tens of thousands of years, are fellow omnivores, are hunting partners, can read our expressions, can track our eyes, and they like us, and we like them.
Show this thread -
8/ I've raised chickens, ducks, geese, sheep, goats, and pigs. None of them are loyal (like a dog), intelligent (like a dog), read our emotions (like a dog), follow my gaze (like a dog), help me with chores (like a dog) or seem to care about my existence (like a dog).
Show this thread -
9/ So, my question to you,
@NHpilled , is: please use science and/or logic to show me that my ethical claim that loyalty-and-team-work is the correct metric to divide edible-outgroup from inedible-ingroup is false.Show this thread -
10/ I'm not philosophy PhD (I'm more of a believe-in-giants guy myself)https://twitter.com/MorlockP/status/1447359999341178889 …
Show this thread -
11/ ...but I've poked at these kind of questions enough (i.e. more than 5 minutes) to understand that logic and science can't define an ethical basis for ANYTHING bc ethical bases are axiomatic and not subject to being proven or disproven
Show this thread -
12/ (obviously some ethical claims are derived from other axiomatic claims)
Show this thread -
13/ You've got it inverted. It's not the presence of a trait that ALLOWS us to eat animals; is the presence of a trait that DISALLOWS us to eat [ certain ] animals. That trait is a mix of intelligence, loyalty, and membership in the human community.https://twitter.com/NHpilled/status/1497975817908854786 …
Show this thread -
14/ I see that trait present in dogs, great apes, dolphins (many stories of dolphins helping people) and - perhaps - whales.
Show this thread -
15/ Aside from those few examples, I'm ok with people [ humanely ] killing and eating just about any creature.
Show this thread -
16/ I'm speaking of species as a whole having this membership or non membership. A particular dog can be disloyal, and I still won't eat it.https://twitter.com/NHpilled/status/1497979643533697031 …
Show this thread -
17/ so, I've answered your question [ even if you don't love my answer ]. Now it's time for you to answer my question: show me, using logic and science, why it's immoral to eat mutton and beef.
Show this thread -
19/ permissible to kill? absolutely permissible to eat? less clear - have to consult a priesthttps://twitter.com/ded_ruckus/status/1498021365630136322 …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.