Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[JohnDonne]

Use your empathy folks, it's present in all social animals, your empathy develops through socialization. There are studies with rats showing they will help other rats out of trouble if they've been socialized, but if a rat is isolated from birth they won't.

It's why most Americans have empathy for dogs but not cows. But here's the thing, you don't have to be socialized with a creature to empathize, you can use your intelligence to understand that animals are persons with their own feelings and mental existence. For the same reason you would find it wrong that someone killed a person you never met, it's because you're intelligent enough to know that they're something like yourself and you empathize with them in not wanting to be killed.

If you ask, "Why should I care about animals?" ask yourself what you could say to a serial killer if he asked, "Why should I care about humans?" in regards to murdering humans. The answer would probably be an appeal to: Empathy.

If reading all of this your instinct is to say: "I don't care" then you have merely made an assertion, and not an argument.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

You are implying that the similarities I point out between animals and humans have no relevance.

Do you disagree that personhood is ethically relevant?

Forgive me for sniping your argument with Okee, but I think making this a little more concrete will be helpful.

You argued that, for the sake of moral consistency, if killing a human is wrong, so is killing a dear. However, to protect dear from a terrible death by starvation, you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing them. Now, I assume, for the sake of fairness and consistency, this means you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing humans, given the right conditions... at least, more comfortable with that than you are with hunting for sport.

This is, I admit, a logically consistent viewpoint. It doesn't strike me as especially ethical, because, again, I am bigoted in favor of humans.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "comfortable." Would you not agree that there are hypothetical conditions imaginable where forcibly sterilizing humans would be more ethical than other hypothetical options?

Whether I am less uncomfortable with forcibly sterilizing humans under a certain set of unnamed parameters as I would be with hunting for sport under a set of unnamed parameters, depends on the unnamed parameters.

I admit that I would choose forcibly sterilizing a part of group of humans given these alternatives:
1:Hunting them for sport
2:Forcing them into a position where they will slowly starve to death.
That is an ugly choice to have to make, but if Doctor Mengele was asking you for your input, would you choose differently, and why?

I can imagine situations where people might be tempted to rationalize sterilizing humans, but I can not imagine it ever being ethical to do so.

1. Hunting a human for sport is unethical. But not 'less' ethical than forcibly sterilizing them. At least they have the ability to escape or defend themselves if they are being hunted.
2. Sterilizing a human like you would an animal to save them from starvation is incredibly unethical. Human beings are capable of adjusting their behavior to save themselves from starvation. I can not imagine any world, no matter how grim, where imposing my will on other people in such a way, because I don't like how they are using resources, is in any way ethical.
That you would consider treating human beings as you would a stray cat population illustrates my main point: the moral framework of veganism doesn't expand ethical obligations by raising animals to the level of human beings, it reduces human beings to the level of animals.

Honestly, imagine two realities. In the first, sport hunting has been outlawed, but humans are regularly rounded up and sterilized. In the second, humans are free to hunt and procreate as they see fit. (Obviously, there are other realities where you can have both limitless humping and no hunting, but they are undesirable for other reasons, like they are riddled with Cloverfield monsters, or the Nazis got the bomb first, or something). Which is the more moral reality? If your ethical reasoning leads you to choosing the first, then it is pretty suspect, tautologies about the self-justifying value of consciousness-that-values-itself aside.

[JohnDonne]

Forgive me for sniping your argument with Okee, but I think making this a little more concrete will be helpful.

You argued that, for the sake of moral consistency, if killing a human is wrong, so is killing a dear. However, to protect dear from a terrible death by starvation, you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing them. Now, I assume, for the sake of fairness and consistency, this means you are comfortable forcibly sterilizing humans, given the right conditions... at least, more comfortable with that than you are with hunting for sport.

This is, I admit, a logically consistent viewpoint. It doesn't strike me as especially ethical, because, again, I am bigoted in favor of humans.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "comfortable." Would you not agree that there are hypothetical conditions imaginable where forcibly sterilizing humans would be more ethical than other hypothetical options?

Whether I am less uncomfortable with forcibly sterilizing humans under a certain set of unnamed parameters as I would be with hunting for sport under a set of unnamed parameters, depends on the unnamed parameters.

I admit that I would choose forcibly sterilizing a part of group of humans given these alternatives:
1:Hunting them for sport
2:Forcing them into a position where they will slowly starve to death.
That is an ugly choice to have to make, but if Doctor Mengele was asking you for your input, would you choose differently, and why?

I can imagine situations where people might be tempted to rationalize sterilizing humans, but I can not imagine it ever being ethical to do so.

1. Hunting a human for sport is unethical. But not 'less' ethical than forcibly sterilizing them. At least they have the ability to escape or defend themselves if they are being hunted.
2. Sterilizing a human like you would an animal to save them from starvation is incredibly unethical. Human beings are capable of adjusting their behavior to save themselves from starvation. I can not imagine any world, no matter how grim, where imposing my will on other people in such a way, because I don't like how they are using resources, is in any way ethical.
That you would consider treating human beings as you would a stray cat population illustrates my main point: the moral framework of veganism doesn't expand ethical obligations by raising animals to the level of human beings, it reduces human beings to the level of animals.

Honestly, imagine two realities. In the first, sport hunting has been outlawed, but humans are regularly rounded up and sterilized. In the second, humans are free to hunt and procreate as they see fit. (Obviously, there are other realities where you can have both limitless humping and no hunting, but they are undesirable for other reasons, like they are riddled with Cloverfield monsters, or the Nazis got the bomb first, or something). Which is the more moral reality? If your ethical reasoning leads you to choosing the first, then it is pretty suspect, tautologies about the self-justifying value of consciousness-that-values-itself aside.

I guess you could argue in regards to the initial hypothetical that neither choice is ethical but I would say a person being forced to choose between them is being ethical in choosing the less unethical option. I'm not sure that the semantics of unethical verse less ethical matters that much in a forced choice hypothetical.

In reply to 1. Technically both the humans being hunted and the humans being forcibly sterilized would have a chance to escape and defend themselves, if we're getting realistic about it. I'd actually give the edge to the ones to be sterilized, tranquilizer darts aren't as fast as bullets. But in both cases the goal is population control, which means quotas, which means a certain pre-determined amount of people are going to be killed or sterilized.
I think that while I find both actions unthinkable without a hypothetical scenario forcing me to choose, there is an ethical distinction between sterilization and murder, murder destroys a person's existence and ability to reproduce, while sterilization only destroy's a person's ability to reproduce. I imagine most sentient beings would choose sterilization over death, if it came down to it. That is what I would base my choice on.

In response to 2. You have not adequately imagined the hypothetical. It is not that the humans in the scenario are likely to starve to death and have a chance to live, they are as helpless as overpopulated deer in suburbia, the hypothetical is based on Okee's claim about deer, and so the scenario is that the humans are put into a position where they will all starve to death. This goes back to the point before about death verse sterilization. You may not agree, but please contemplate the hypothetical adequately before making a judgment that I would treat my fellow humans as I would treat stray cats. I would only do that were humans put into precisely the same position that stray cats are in.

In your two hypothetical worlds, you're asking which is more moral?

In the first hypothetical world you say humans are rounded up regularly to be sterilized while humans in the second world are "free" to hunt. Why didn't you say humans are "free" to round up and forcibly sterilize other humans? That sounds more positive, doesn't it? Or in the other case you could have said, "Animals are forcibly hunted." Sounds nastier than humans being "free."

Well, in the former sterilization case you didn't say humans, did you? Maybe it's an advanced alien race doing the sterilizing? I'm not sure it matters except that there's an element of orwellian police state horror in one case and science fiction scariness in the other.

For the sake of clarity I think it should say, "in the first world humans are regularly rounded up and sterilized but hunting is outlawed and in the second world animals are regularly hunted and killed by humans but humans are free to pro-create." Is that fair enough?

As for my answer, I would say it depends if the humans doing the hunting do it out of necessity. And I would need to know why the humans are being sterilized, out of some kind of necessity for their own survival? Or just for the sake of it?

I'll give you this, if the hunting and the sterilization were both without any ethical justifications, the first reality sounds more moral to me.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Well, I wouldn't use the word "comfortable." Would you not agree that there are hypothetical conditions imaginable where forcibly sterilizing humans would be more ethical than other hypothetical options?

Whether I am less uncomfortable with forcibly sterilizing humans under a certain set of unnamed parameters as I would be with hunting for sport under a set of unnamed parameters, depends on the unnamed parameters.

I admit that I would choose forcibly sterilizing a part of group of humans given these alternatives:
1:Hunting them for sport
2:Forcing them into a position where they will slowly starve to death.
That is an ugly choice to have to make, but if Doctor Mengele was asking you for your input, would you choose differently, and why?

I can imagine situations where people might be tempted to rationalize sterilizing humans, but I can not imagine it ever being ethical to do so.

1. Hunting a human for sport is unethical. But not 'less' ethical than forcibly sterilizing them. At least they have the ability to escape or defend themselves if they are being hunted.
2. Sterilizing a human like you would an animal to save them from starvation is incredibly unethical. Human beings are capable of adjusting their behavior to save themselves from starvation. I can not imagine any world, no matter how grim, where imposing my will on other people in such a way, because I don't like how they are using resources, is in any way ethical.
That you would consider treating human beings as you would a stray cat population illustrates my main point: the moral framework of veganism doesn't expand ethical obligations by raising animals to the level of human beings, it reduces human beings to the level of animals.

Honestly, imagine two realities. In the first, sport hunting has been outlawed, but humans are regularly rounded up and sterilized. In the second, humans are free to hunt and procreate as they see fit. (Obviously, there are other realities where you can have both limitless humping and no hunting, but they are undesirable for other reasons, like they are riddled with Cloverfield monsters, or the Nazis got the bomb first, or something). Which is the more moral reality? If your ethical reasoning leads you to choosing the first, then it is pretty suspect, tautologies about the self-justifying value of consciousness-that-values-itself aside.

I guess you could argue in regards to the initial hypothetical that neither choice is ethical but I would say a person being forced to choose between them is being ethical in choosing the less unethical option. I'm not sure that the semantics of unethical verse less ethical matters that much in a forced choice hypothetical.

In reply to 1. Technically both the humans being hunted and the humans being forcibly sterilized would have a chance to escape and defend themselves, if we're getting realistic about it. I'd actually give the edge to the ones to be sterilized, tranquilizer darts aren't as fast as bullets. But in both cases the goal is population control, which means quotas, which means a certain pre-determined amount of people are going to be killed or sterilized.
I think that while I find both actions unthinkable without a hypothetical scenario forcing me to choose, there is an ethical distinction between sterilization and murder, murder destroys a person's existence and ability to reproduce, while sterilization only destroy's a person's ability to reproduce. I imagine most sentient beings would choose sterilization over death, if it came down to it. That is what I would base my choice on.

In response to 2. You have not adequately imagined the hypothetical. It is not that the humans in the scenario are likely to starve to death and have a chance to live, they are as helpless as overpopulated deer in suburbia, the hypothetical is based on Okee's claim about deer, and so the scenario is that the humans are put into a position where they will all starve to death. This goes back to the point before about death verse sterilization. You may not agree, but please contemplate the hypothetical adequately before making a judgment that I would treat my fellow humans as I would treat stray cats. I would only do that were humans put into precisely the same position that stray cats are in.

In your two hypothetical worlds, you're asking which is more moral?

In the first hypothetical world you say humans are rounded up regularly to be sterilized while humans in the second world are "free" to hunt. Why didn't you say humans are "free" to round up and forcibly sterilize other humans? That sounds more positive, doesn't it? Or in the other case you could have said, "Animals are forcibly hunted." Sounds nastier than humans being "free."

Well, in the former sterilization case you didn't say humans, did you? Maybe it's an advanced alien race doing the sterilizing? I'm not sure it matters except that there's an element of orwellian police state horror in one case and science fiction scariness in the other.

For the sake of clarity I think it should say, "in the first world humans are regularly rounded up and sterilized but hunting is outlawed and in the second world animals are regularly hunted and killed by humans but they are free to pro-create." Is that fair enough?

As for my answer, I would say it depends if the humans doing the hunting do it out of necessity. And I would need to know why the humans are being sterilized, out of some kind of necessity for their own survival? Or just for the sake of it?

I'll give you this, if the hunting and the sterilization were both without any ethical justifications, the first reality sounds more moral to me.

If I have not adequately imagined a world where humans have so little agency that they will all certainly starve unless we figure out a method of forced sterilization, it is because it is hard for me to imagine human minds as having the same level of agency as stray cats or white tail deer. Again, this is because I believe there are important difference between human minds and other animals.

The fact that you require more context to determine if forced sterilization of humans is an acceptable trade off for eliminating sport hunting is further confirmation that the ethical framework of veganism is confused. It rests entirely on the premise that humans are no better than animals, which may look, to the vegan, like empathy for beasts, but in every instance seems to manifest as decreased empathy for humans.

The contortions and increased complexity of hypothetical counter examples required to justify something like forced human sterilization should really set off some alarm bells for vegans. This sort of unyielding dedication to the moral equivalence of men and beasts constantly forces vegans to accept the most inhumane behavior towards human beings under the rubric of 'not as bad as murdering chickens.'

Free to round up and forcibly sterilize other humans? There is a good reason I didn't phrase it that way; it would only occur to someone with deranged moral priorities to do so.

Now, if I were a vegan, I would simply walk back the notion that it is acceptable to forcibly sterilize deer. As it is wrong to murder deer because, like humans, they want to live, it is also wrong to forcibly sterilize deer because, like humans, they want to rut. The only reason I can imagine for not taking this line is that, deep down, you know that it is absurd to claim there are no morally relevant distinctions between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

[JohnDonne]

That you would consider treating human beings as you would a stray cat population illustrates my main point: the moral framework of veganism doesn't expand ethical obligations by raising animals to the level of human beings, it reduces human beings to the level of animals.

I think veganism does both. Veganism proposes to balance the interests of two groups where the one reigned supreme. This may seem like a totally "anti-human" thing to do, but I don't see it that way, any more than I see outlawing rape as "anti-men" lol.

If you're bigoted against animals and don't care about them at all, this whole idea must seem very strange, as strange as what the white racist would feel at being informed that he is the same as his black slave.

It's a lot to do with perspective. If you saw nothing wrong in murder, then those that argue for laws against murder would appear like tyrannical hypocrites.
"They justify the law by citing the value of the human, yet they propose to put humans in cages, debasing them, taking away their freedom forever, and even breaking their own laws by executing them!"

[JohnDonne]

I can imagine situations where people might be tempted to rationalize sterilizing humans, but I can not imagine it ever being ethical to do so.

1. Hunting a human for sport is unethical. But not 'less' ethical than forcibly sterilizing them. At least they have the ability to escape or defend themselves if they are being hunted.
2. Sterilizing a human like you would an animal to save them from starvation is incredibly unethical. Human beings are capable of adjusting their behavior to save themselves from starvation. I can not imagine any world, no matter how grim, where imposing my will on other people in such a way, because I don't like how they are using resources, is in any way ethical.
That you would consider treating human beings as you would a stray cat population illustrates my main point: the moral framework of veganism doesn't expand ethical obligations by raising animals to the level of human beings, it reduces human beings to the level of animals.

Honestly, imagine two realities. In the first, sport hunting has been outlawed, but humans are regularly rounded up and sterilized. In the second, humans are free to hunt and procreate as they see fit. (Obviously, there are other realities where you can have both limitless humping and no hunting, but they are undesirable for other reasons, like they are riddled with Cloverfield monsters, or the Nazis got the bomb first, or something). Which is the more moral reality? If your ethical reasoning leads you to choosing the first, then it is pretty suspect, tautologies about the self-justifying value of consciousness-that-values-itself aside.

I guess you could argue in regards to the initial hypothetical that neither choice is ethical but I would say a person being forced to choose between them is being ethical in choosing the less unethical option. I'm not sure that the semantics of unethical verse less ethical matters that much in a forced choice hypothetical.

In reply to 1. Technically both the humans being hunted and the humans being forcibly sterilized would have a chance to escape and defend themselves, if we're getting realistic about it. I'd actually give the edge to the ones to be sterilized, tranquilizer darts aren't as fast as bullets. But in both cases the goal is population control, which means quotas, which means a certain pre-determined amount of people are going to be killed or sterilized.
I think that while I find both actions unthinkable without a hypothetical scenario forcing me to choose, there is an ethical distinction between sterilization and murder, murder destroys a person's existence and ability to reproduce, while sterilization only destroy's a person's ability to reproduce. I imagine most sentient beings would choose sterilization over death, if it came down to it. That is what I would base my choice on.

In response to 2. You have not adequately imagined the hypothetical. It is not that the humans in the scenario are likely to starve to death and have a chance to live, they are as helpless as overpopulated deer in suburbia, the hypothetical is based on Okee's claim about deer, and so the scenario is that the humans are put into a position where they will all starve to death. This goes back to the point before about death verse sterilization. You may not agree, but please contemplate the hypothetical adequately before making a judgment that I would treat my fellow humans as I would treat stray cats. I would only do that were humans put into precisely the same position that stray cats are in.

In your two hypothetical worlds, you're asking which is more moral?

In the first hypothetical world you say humans are rounded up regularly to be sterilized while humans in the second world are "free" to hunt. Why didn't you say humans are "free" to round up and forcibly sterilize other humans? That sounds more positive, doesn't it? Or in the other case you could have said, "Animals are forcibly hunted." Sounds nastier than humans being "free."

Well, in the former sterilization case you didn't say humans, did you? Maybe it's an advanced alien race doing the sterilizing? I'm not sure it matters except that there's an element of orwellian police state horror in one case and science fiction scariness in the other.

For the sake of clarity I think it should say, "in the first world humans are regularly rounded up and sterilized but hunting is outlawed and in the second world animals are regularly hunted and killed by humans but they are free to pro-create." Is that fair enough?

As for my answer, I would say it depends if the humans doing the hunting do it out of necessity. And I would need to know why the humans are being sterilized, out of some kind of necessity for their own survival? Or just for the sake of it?

I'll give you this, if the hunting and the sterilization were both without any ethical justifications, the first reality sounds more moral to me.

If I have not adequately imagined a world where humans have so little agency that they will all certainly starve unless we figure out a method of forced sterilization, it is because it is hard for me to imagine human minds as having the same level of agency as stray cats or white tail deer. Again, this is because I believe there are important difference between human minds and other animals.

The fact that you require more context to determine if forced sterilization of humans is an acceptable trade off for eliminating sport hunting is further confirmation that the ethical framework of veganism is confused. It rests entirely on the premise that humans are no better than animals, which may look, to the vegan, like empathy for beasts, but in every instance seems to manifest as decreased empathy for humans.

The contortions and increased complexity of hypothetical counter examples required to justify something like forced human sterilization should really set off some alarm bells for vegans. This sort of unyielding dedication to the moral equivalence of men and beasts constantly forces vegans to accept the most inhumane behavior towards human beings under the rubric of 'not as bad as murdering chickens.'

Free to round up and forcibly sterilize other humans? There is a good reason I didn't phrase it that way; it would only occur to someone with deranged moral priorities to do so.

Now, if I were a vegan, I would simply walk back the notion that it is acceptable to forcibly sterilize deer. As it is wrong to murder deer because, like humans, they want to live, it is also wrong to forcibly sterilize deer because, like humans, they want to rut. The only reason I can imagine for not taking this line is that, deep down, you know that it is absurd to claim there are no morally relevant distinctions between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

I didn't walk back the notion that it's acceptable to sterilize a deer is simply because I was given a very specific case by Okeenofee, and even though I don't necessarily believe him when he says all the deer would starve to death if we didn't hunt, it was an interesting question and so I pretended there was only three hard options available, and given those three, sterilization appeared to me as the most ethical and the only responsible choice, especially given that it was based on a hypothetical vegan society that would be causing the animals to all starve to death if human hunting were disallowed, and the only reason that would be the case is because the natural predators of the deer were hunted to extinction by humans, and most of their habitat has been taken by us. So I think in that particular instance there would be an obligation for human intervention and I stand by my answer.

You're copping out of the three choice human hypothetical because you don't want to answer it. I never said you have to imagine a world where humans minds are the same as the deer, or that humans are different than what they are, simply that these humans are put into the position the deer are in, in an ethically relevant way. They need not become deer for this scenario to be conceived. One might imagine it's all part of a sick Nazi experiment, you're part of it too. The Nazis won the war, they took some undesirables and put them in a walled off natural area and they give you, their hostage, three options. And if you don't choose in say, five minutes, then the Nazis will both sterilize them and then kill them. That should do it.

What inhumanities have I visited upon humans in these fantasy hypotheticals which you refuse to contemplate, that I propose sterilization is better than death, that I morally prefer a world where humans are sterilized to one where deer are murdered? As though I wouldn't rail against either world with all the fiber of my being? You think I would accept such a world just because I say I prefer one to the other?

We know at least where you stand in relation to one of those evils, the evils your values visit upon the animal kingdom are manifestly obscene, the blood your philosophy has already spilled could raise the tide of an ocean. *Spits* Your irrational fetishism of human pleasure at the unyielding expense of all other moral persons is what I consider deranged.

And it says far more about the rigidity of your world-view that you would find the exercise of nuance in insanely unlikely hypotheticals so alarming and offensive.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That you would consider treating human beings as you would a stray cat population illustrates my main point: the moral framework of veganism doesn't expand ethical obligations by raising animals to the level of human beings, it reduces human beings to the level of animals.

I think veganism does both. Veganism proposes to balance the interests of two groups where the one reigned supreme. This may seem like a totally "anti-human" thing to do, but I don't see it that way, any more than I see outlawing rape as "anti-men" lol.

If you're bigoted against animals and don't care about them at all, this whole idea must seem very strange, as strange as what the white racist would feel at being informed that he is the same as his black slave.

It's a lot to do with perspective. If you saw nothing wrong in murder, then those that argue for laws against murder would appear like tyrannical hypocrites.
"They justify the law by citing the value of the human, yet they propose to put humans in cages, debasing them, taking away their freedom forever, and even breaking their own laws by executing them!"

There might be a fundamental incompatibility in how we view ethics, and I have been reticent to address it because I can't really think of a way to do it without making this discussion even more prosaic (as much as I have enjoyed it).

I am not a consequentialist, in that I think one's motivation for a behavior is more ethically relevant than the result. As such, if a person is compelled to avoid eating meat because they feel guilt over causing the death of a living being, that may be rooted in empathy, and as a result, is an ethical thing for that person to do. The fact that the result is fewer dead cows doesn't really have much ethical value at all, as far as I am concerned. However, if a person wants to justify this 'objectively' by claiming there are no moral distinctions between animals and humans, this is very much 'anti-human,' and a wanton abandonment of empathy and morality, even though the result may be the same.

For the person who legitimately feels guilty for eating meat, I suspect they are suffering from a sort of neurotic obsession with maximizing empathy as the only dimension of conscious experience with any ethical import, but I would never attempt to force them out of their guilt by demanding they eat steaks until they get the fuck over it. I am happy to let them continue to empathize with whatever they like, and let that motivate their behavior, and I am happy to call this ethical. I do not, however, feel compelled in any way to adopt their empathy as my own, and extend it to whatever they think I ought to. And I certainly think it is unethical of them to try to force that upon me, as I think it is unethical for them to attempt to justify their imposition by reducing the status of human consciousness, as reducing the status of human consciousness only corrupts ethics.

Since you insist on comparing my bigotry in favor of human beings to the bigotry of a slaveholder, I'll point out that it was only when the enlightenment convinced us to view all people as more than animals, and morally equivalent by virtue of their humanity, that you began to see vigorous moral attacks on the institution of slavery. It wasn't until more modern thinkers decided to reduce humans back to the status of animals that you begin to see some truly disgusting, morally deranged justifications for things like eugenics.

Try to pursue your noble calling to defend chicken and fishkind in a way that doesn't lend itself so easily to dehumanizing the only creatures on earth that we can be somewhat certain have human level consciousness, and are capable of human level moral reasoning and intuition.

[JohnDonne]

That you would consider treating human beings as you would a stray cat population illustrates my main point: the moral framework of veganism doesn't expand ethical obligations by raising animals to the level of human beings, it reduces human beings to the level of animals.

I think veganism does both. Veganism proposes to balance the interests of two groups where the one reigned supreme. This may seem like a totally "anti-human" thing to do, but I don't see it that way, any more than I see outlawing rape as "anti-men" lol.

If you're bigoted against animals and don't care about them at all, this whole idea must seem very strange, as strange as what the white racist would feel at being informed that he is the same as his black slave.

It's a lot to do with perspective. If you saw nothing wrong in murder, then those that argue for laws against murder would appear like tyrannical hypocrites.
"They justify the law by citing the value of the human, yet they propose to put humans in cages, debasing them, taking away their freedom forever, and even breaking their own laws by executing them!"

There might be a fundamental incompatibility in how we view ethics, and I have been reticent to address it because I can't really think of a way to do it without making this discussion even more prosaic (as much as I have enjoyed it).

I am not a consequentialist, in that I think one's motivation for a behavior is more ethically relevant than the result. As such, if a person is compelled to avoid eating meat because they feel guilt over causing the death of a living being, that may be rooted in empathy, and as a result, is an ethical thing for that person to do. The fact that the result is fewer dead cows doesn't really have much ethical value at all, as far as I am concerned. However, if a person wants to justify this 'objectively' by claiming there are no moral distinctions between animals and humans, this is very much 'anti-human,' and a wanton abandonment of empathy and morality, even though the result may be the same.

For the person who legitimately feels guilty for eating meat, I suspect they are suffering from a sort of neurotic obsession with maximizing empathy as the only dimension of conscious experience with any ethical import, but I would never attempt to force them out of their guilt by demanding they eat steaks until they get the fuck over it. I am happy to let them continue to empathize with whatever they like, and let that motivate their behavior, and I am happy to call this ethical. I do not, however, feel compelled in any way to adopt their empathy as my own, and extend it to whatever they think I ought to. And I certainly think it is unethical of them to try to force that upon me, as I think it is unethical for them to attempt to justify their imposition by reducing the status of human consciousness, as reducing the status of human consciousness only corrupts ethics.

Since you insist on comparing my bigotry in favor of human beings to the bigotry of a slaveholder, I'll point out that it was only when the enlightenment convinced us to view all people as more than animals, and morally equivalent by virtue of their humanity, that you began to see vigorous moral attacks on the institution of slavery. It wasn't until more modern thinkers decided to reduce humans back to the status of animals that you begin to see some truly disgusting, morally deranged justifications for things like eugenics.

Try to pursue your noble calling to defend chicken and fishkind in a way that doesn't lend itself so easily to dehumanizing the only creatures on earth that we can be somewhat certain have human level consciousness, and are capable of human level moral reasoning and intuition.

Not sure I understand your first paragraph. You say an act with a motivation rooted in empathy is thereby ethical. If that's true it would follow in my case that the act of claiming that there is no moral distinction between cows and humans is an ethical one, since it is ostensibly rooted in empathy. I should be in the clear so far...
Yet you then say this is an abandonment of "empathy" and "morality" and is "anti-human." What is it that is abandoning empathy and morality? The person who is by definition acting out of empathy, or the action that is by definition rooted in empathy? Why does it follow that this is an abandonment of those things, and if consequence isn't ethically relevant compared to motivation, why does it even ethically matter, and by what objective standard?

You can prefer to exalt human consciousness and view all other consciousness as worthless, but if you argue that exalting consciousness in general would degrade ethics, that's a pretty objective claim, can you explain this objective basis for ethics and why humans have the only ethically valuable version of consciousness?

The fact that humans used their cruelty to sentient animals as justification for their cruelty to sentient humans kind of implies that the justifications for the cruelty to animals can be readily applied to humans. If all sentience were recognized as ethically valuable then such justifications and precedent wouldn't exist. For man is an animal, if animals are worthless, it makes it that much easier to decide that man is worthless.

I disagree that I am dehumanizing humans, any more than I lose rights by other people being granted them.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I think veganism does both. Veganism proposes to balance the interests of two groups where the one reigned supreme. This may seem like a totally "anti-human" thing to do, but I don't see it that way, any more than I see outlawing rape as "anti-men" lol.

If you're bigoted against animals and don't care about them at all, this whole idea must seem very strange, as strange as what the white racist would feel at being informed that he is the same as his black slave.

It's a lot to do with perspective. If you saw nothing wrong in murder, then those that argue for laws against murder would appear like tyrannical hypocrites.
"They justify the law by citing the value of the human, yet they propose to put humans in cages, debasing them, taking away their freedom forever, and even breaking their own laws by executing them!"

There might be a fundamental incompatibility in how we view ethics, and I have been reticent to address it because I can't really think of a way to do it without making this discussion even more prosaic (as much as I have enjoyed it).

I am not a consequentialist, in that I think one's motivation for a behavior is more ethically relevant than the result. As such, if a person is compelled to avoid eating meat because they feel guilt over causing the death of a living being, that may be rooted in empathy, and as a result, is an ethical thing for that person to do. The fact that the result is fewer dead cows doesn't really have much ethical value at all, as far as I am concerned. However, if a person wants to justify this 'objectively' by claiming there are no moral distinctions between animals and humans, this is very much 'anti-human,' and a wanton abandonment of empathy and morality, even though the result may be the same.

For the person who legitimately feels guilty for eating meat, I suspect they are suffering from a sort of neurotic obsession with maximizing empathy as the only dimension of conscious experience with any ethical import, but I would never attempt to force them out of their guilt by demanding they eat steaks until they get the fuck over it. I am happy to let them continue to empathize with whatever they like, and let that motivate their behavior, and I am happy to call this ethical. I do not, however, feel compelled in any way to adopt their empathy as my own, and extend it to whatever they think I ought to. And I certainly think it is unethical of them to try to force that upon me, as I think it is unethical for them to attempt to justify their imposition by reducing the status of human consciousness, as reducing the status of human consciousness only corrupts ethics.

Since you insist on comparing my bigotry in favor of human beings to the bigotry of a slaveholder, I'll point out that it was only when the enlightenment convinced us to view all people as more than animals, and morally equivalent by virtue of their humanity, that you began to see vigorous moral attacks on the institution of slavery. It wasn't until more modern thinkers decided to reduce humans back to the status of animals that you begin to see some truly disgusting, morally deranged justifications for things like eugenics.

Try to pursue your noble calling to defend chicken and fishkind in a way that doesn't lend itself so easily to dehumanizing the only creatures on earth that we can be somewhat certain have human level consciousness, and are capable of human level moral reasoning and intuition.

Not sure I understand your first paragraph. You say an act with a motivation rooted in empathy is thereby ethical. If that's true it would follow in my case that the act of claiming that there is no moral distinction between cows and humans is an ethical one, since it is ostensibly rooted in empathy. I should be in the clear so far...
Yet you then say this is an abandonment of "empathy" and "morality" and is "anti-human." What is it that is abandoning empathy and morality? The person who is by definition acting out of empathy, or the action that is by definition rooted in empathy? Why does it follow that this is an abandonment of those things, and if consequence isn't ethically relevant compared to motivation, why does it even ethically matter, and by what objective standard?

You can prefer to exalt human consciousness and view all other consciousness as worthless, but if you argue that exalting consciousness in general would degrade ethics, that's a pretty objective claim, can you explain this objective basis for ethics and why humans have the only ethically valuable version of consciousness?

The fact that humans used their cruelty to sentient animals as justification for their cruelty to sentient humans kind of implies that the justifications for the cruelty to animals can be readily applied to humans. If all sentience were recognized as ethically valuable then such justifications and precedent wouldn't exist. For man is an animal, if animals are worthless, it makes it that much easier to decide that man is worthless.

I disagree that I am dehumanizing humans, any more than I lose rights by other people being granted them.

The only people who are using cruelty towards animals as a justification of cruelty towards humans are the people who are claiming there is no moral distinction between them. The rest of us humans are not so morally confused.

Now:
"but if you argue that exalting consciousness in general would degrade ethics, that's a pretty objective claim"
is followed by:
"For man is an animal, if animals are worthless, it makes it that much easier to decide that man is worthless. "
I am arguing that man is more than just an animal, and thus worthy of special consideration. It is your arguments in support of veganism that show a deterioration of empathy for humans by placing them in the same moral sphere as beasts, and making it easy for you to consider them worthless. I suffer from no such conflict. Humans are an animal, but they are an animal with unique moral attributes that put them into the moral sphere. Easily done.
I do not need to provide an 'objective basis for ethics' to argue that, deontologically speaking, humans are both the source and sensible object of moral obligation. Nor am I asking you to provide an 'objective basis for ethics' to justify the guilt you feel over consuming animals.

Clearly, believing in the 'objectivity' of your position is important to you, but you seem to rely exclusively on a version of absolute moral parity for that objectivity. Prove that parity is an objective condition for morality without resorting to a tautology, and perhaps you will have a point. Until then, we can just dispense with the pretense to objectivity when we talk about ethics.
Empathy and compassion are ethical motivations for action. Trying to carve out an objective reason for that empathy is, morally speaking, neutral, and pointless. Trying to compel me to act a certain way on account of your feelings of empathy towards animals is selfish, autocratic morality policing, and, I would argue, unethical.

If consequences are what matter, and not motivations, then you can only ever judge the morality of an action after the fact (and then, really, what is the point of establishing an ethical framework at all), and, furthermore, you can justify any depraved action as long as you can reasonably claim the results will be worth it. This is, in my opinion, a terrible basis for ethics and morality, and certainly not more objective or consistent than idealism or virtue ethics.

By way of a tl:dr:
If we agree that empathy is important to virtue and morality, animals are out of the equation, since you can not understand what it feels like to be a non-human animal. You can pretend you do by anthropomorphising them, but that is it.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am dying right now. Today is a fasting day, but it was also a strength-training and running day combined. I have two salmon fillets waiting to be heated up in 40 minutes. I don't know if I can make it. I am so hungry right now.

Lol.

So fasting day ...is to eat two salmon.


Oh, it was two fillets. But still, that's a normal hefty meal.

Day ends at midnight. It wasn't a fat loss fast. It's a religious observance.