Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Hastur]

Rats would like us to leave them alone in our cities. Should we?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Then you open the door to eating sentient humans on similar grounds. I wouldn’t do that, it’s not ethical.

There you go again, stating that the equivalent ethical value allows for equivalent treatment. I think that animals have considerably less ethical value than humans, so I don't run the risk of stumbling into cannibalism. Your insistence on the moral equivalence of sentience is the only argument that seems to lead down that path, since none of the non-vegans here seem to think eating humans is an option.

I would argue for different standards of treatment, it’s just I would argue on grounds that I can justify without resorting to a double standard.

For example, animals like to be left alone in nature, so I would argue it’s ethical to leave them alone in nature.

Of course you seem to find trouble with the whole idea of giving reasons for things.

We are back to 'all sentience is equally valuable, but that equal value admits for different standards of treatment' again. And that standard seems to be based on 'what would that sentience like.' Well, I am sentient, and I would like to eat meat. There we go, no double standard.

[JohnDonne]

There you go again, stating that the equivalent ethical value allows for equivalent treatment. I think that animals have considerably less ethical value than humans, so I don't run the risk of stumbling into cannibalism. Your insistence on the moral equivalence of sentience is the only argument that seems to lead down that path, since none of the non-vegans here seem to think eating humans is an option.

I would argue for different standards of treatment, it’s just I would argue on grounds that I can justify without resorting to a double standard.

For example, animals like to be left alone in nature, so I would argue it’s ethical to leave them alone in nature.

Of course you seem to find trouble with the whole idea of giving reasons for things.

We are back to 'all sentience is equally valuable, but that equal value admits for different standards of treatment' again. And that standard seems to be based on 'what would that sentience like.' Well, I am sentient, and I would like to eat meat. There we go, no double standard.

No, you're just using another double standard.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I would argue for different standards of treatment, it’s just I would argue on grounds that I can justify without resorting to a double standard.

For example, animals like to be left alone in nature, so I would argue it’s ethical to leave them alone in nature.

Of course you seem to find trouble with the whole idea of giving reasons for things.

We are back to 'all sentience is equally valuable, but that equal value admits for different standards of treatment' again. And that standard seems to be based on 'what would that sentience like.' Well, I am sentient, and I would like to eat meat. There we go, no double standard.

No, you're just using another double standard.

You suggested that the standard of treatment should be what a sentient being likes, not I. Why would you prioritize what another animal would like over what I would like?

[JohnDonne]

We are back to 'all sentience is equally valuable, but that equal value admits for different standards of treatment' again. And that standard seems to be based on 'what would that sentience like.' Well, I am sentient, and I would like to eat meat. There we go, no double standard.

No, you're just using another double standard.

You suggested that the standard of treatment should be what a sentient being likes, not I. Why would you prioritize what another animal would like over what I would like?

I hate to bring the concept of rights into this, but it's a useful analogy. Positive rights are incoherent. Being left alone is analogous to a negative right. You are suggesting you have a positive right to eat other sentient creatures.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

No, you're just using another double standard.

You suggested that the standard of treatment should be what a sentient being likes, not I. Why would you prioritize what another animal would like over what I would like?

I hate to bring the concept of rights into this, but it's a useful analogy. Positive rights are incoherent. Being left alone is analogous to a negative right. You are suggesting you have a positive right to eat other sentient creatures.

If you want to rest your case on the idea that 'positive rights are incoherent' then, unless we are using the term very differently, you are arguing that it is morally incoherent to either permit or oblige any action by any sentient creature.

Very Zen, I suppose, but not particularly useful.

The whole positive/negative rights distinction has always struck me as tedious and basically meaningless though.

[Okeefenokee]

Then you open the door to eating sentient humans on similar grounds. I wouldn’t do that, it’s not ethical.

There you go again, stating that the equivalent ethical value allows for equivalent treatment. I think that animals have considerably less ethical value than humans, so I don't run the risk of stumbling into cannibalism. Your insistence on the moral equivalence of sentience is the only argument that seems to lead down that path, since none of the non-vegans here seem to think eating humans is an option.

I would argue for different standards of treatment, it’s just I would argue on grounds that I can justify without resorting to a double standard.

For example, animals like to be left alone in nature, so I would argue it’s ethical to leave them alone in nature.

Of course you seem to find trouble with the whole idea of giving reasons for things.

I've never seen a cattle ranch in nature, so that should be fine.

[JohnDonne]

You suggested that the standard of treatment should be what a sentient being likes, not I. Why would you prioritize what another animal would like over what I would like?

I hate to bring the concept of rights into this, but it's a useful analogy. Positive rights are incoherent. Being left alone is analogous to a negative right. You are suggesting you have a positive right to eat other sentient creatures.

If you want to rest your case on the idea that 'positive rights are incoherent' then, unless we are using the term very differently, you are arguing that it is morally incoherent to either permit or oblige any action by any sentient creature.

Very Zen, I suppose, but not particularly useful.

The whole positive/negative rights distinction has always struck me as tedious and basically meaningless though.

I'm not sure what you mean by permit or oblige any action. Negative rights imply obligations and permissions. But you think they're the same so whatever...

Diversionary tactics aside, I think I stated my position quite clearly and the honest reader does not need me to explain why equal ethical consideration does not necessarily result in equal treatment, just as different treatment is separate from double standards.

I have sharpened my arguments, you have made me stronger, for that you have my gratitude.

[JohnDonne]

There you go again, stating that the equivalent ethical value allows for equivalent treatment. I think that animals have considerably less ethical value than humans, so I don't run the risk of stumbling into cannibalism. Your insistence on the moral equivalence of sentience is the only argument that seems to lead down that path, since none of the non-vegans here seem to think eating humans is an option.

I would argue for different standards of treatment, it’s just I would argue on grounds that I can justify without resorting to a double standard.

For example, animals like to be left alone in nature, so I would argue it’s ethical to leave them alone in nature.

Of course you seem to find trouble with the whole idea of giving reasons for things.

I've never seen a cattle ranch in nature, so that should be fine.

Hastur and I covered this awhile back.

[JohnDonne]

Rats would like us to leave them alone in our cities. Should we?

I don't really know, honestly, the vegan argument can lead to challenging dilemmas. But to be fair it's separate from the whole killing for meat question.