[noondip]

There are victims which suffer as a consequence of your actions. I think that makes it clear the behavior is unethical. If "I want to" were all the justification needed, the world would be an even more terrible place to live. We wouldn't accept that excuse if made by a person kicking a dog, for example, so why should we for abuse of other non-human animal species?

Edit (can't directly reply):

> There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering

There is plenty wrong with causing suffering. I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time. Anyway, I would like to share with you that it has been my experience watching those videos and learning more about how animals are treated for food and other purposes changed my perspective, and it might interest you, too. Earthlings is a powerful documentary, is available free on YouTube, and I recommend it.

> The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets.

Exactly! To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent?

> I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better.

It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior. Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of. Do check out the Earthlings documentary, it will really open your eyes.

[Amezarak]

It doesn't make it clear at all. There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering, however most of us personally don't like it or however much some of us might empathize with the victims. You're simply restating your position based on your personal value preferences (such as 'suffering is evil') which are by no means universal and certainly not binding moral edicts.

The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets. That doesn't make our beliefs moral truths, or our arguments sound.

What you're advocating is that we change those norms to proscribe the eating of animals based on your value-preferences - you're advocating a change of our tastes, in both senses of the word. And you are not going to sway many people to make a fundamentally emotional decision with 'logical' or 'moral' reasoning, particularly when for many people the eating of meat (or even the killing of animals) is not only something they like but part of their cultural identity. Even so, people like me are still going to be steadfast in their opposition to your attempted revolution of social norms based simply on their value-preferences and because, frankly, I find the presumption of moral superiority repugnant, especially in an age where we should all know better.

[SwellJoe]

There's nothing objectively wrong or evil about suffering

Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples.

The only reason you and I wouldn't accept that argument about kicking a dog is because that goes against strong social norms our culture has about abusing pets.

That's really the only reason you see for this? So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable? Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief? Is it always right, if popular opinion says it is?

[Amezarak]

> Nothing wrong or evil about human-inflicted suffering? So, what is objectively wrong or evil in this world? Give me some examples.

Nothing. That's my whole point. Can you tell me where we can see what is objective evil? Or is it all just ultimately based on our contemporary feelings that "oh, that's awful"?

> So, anything that doesn't go against social norms is ethically acceptable?

Correct, ethically acceptable is defined by your culture. If you're an ancient Aztec, human sacrifice is ethical. If you're a 21st century American, human sacrifice is not ethical.

> Are there no historical incidents where horrible things were done within the bounds of "social norms" that maybe make you question that belief?

No, because I'm not arrogant enough to declare myself somehow wiser and more able to see The Truth than the billions of humans who have lived on this earth over the past two million years who were also convinced they alone knew the truth of right and wrong while all holding very different moral beliefs from one another. Why do you think you're different? If there is a "true" morality, it is clearly not accessible to mere mortals by reason.

[SwellJoe]

"Can you tell me where we can see what is objective evil? Or is it all just ultimately based on our contemporary feelings that "oh, that's awful"?"

My particular ethics are (mostly) utilitarian in nature. Maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, with a recognition that we live in a world of limited resources and limited understanding of both happiness and suffering. But, it's relatively easy to recognize suffering, so I try to shape my life in such a way that the amount of suffering I cause is minimized. I would argue that suffering is a more objective measure than popular opinion, though neither is perfect, and both rely on my ability to understand what other people or sentient beings are experiencing and thinking.

"No, because I'm not arrogant enough to declare myself somehow wiser and more able to see The Truth than the billions of humans who have lived on this earth over the past two million years"

But, arrogant enough to dismiss thousands of years of philosophers on the topic of ethics. Got it.

Frankly, I find your belief on this repugnant, and disturbing. I'm not sure how to even have a conversation about ethics with someone who denies the very existence of ethical behavior, instead replacing it with adherence to popular opinion (and demanding objectivity while relying on something as shifting and difficult to observe as the beliefs of large groups of people).

[Amezarak]

> Maximizes happiness and minimizing suffering,

Why? Utilitarianism is fine, but the variable you choose to optimize and why is precisely what is subjective. Why optimize for happiness and not order? Or security? Or liberty? Or really, anything else? Simply because you prefer it.

> But, arrogant enough to dismiss thousands of years of philosophers on the topic of ethics. Got it.

Are you sure you're not picking and choosing your philosophers, and picking and choosing what they had to say on the subject? While there has been an abundance of philosophers writing reams and reams on the subject, I think you might find the majority of them simply wrote to extol a particular brand of norms (usually the imagined ones of their past) without justifying them on any solid rational basis. A careful examination of these 'ethics' generally finds they're quite distinct from what a 21st century westerner actually regards as ethical. There have also been plenty of philosophers saying exactly what I am saying.

> I'm not sure how to even have a conversation about ethics with someone who denies the very existence of ethical behavior, instead replacing it with adherence to popular opinion (and demanding objectivity while relying on something as shifting and difficult to observe as the beliefs of large groups of people).

The fortunate thing is that the product of normal socialization is a human being who has already been instilled with the norms that society wants it to hold and therefore most people are in agreement about the broad strokes of what is right and wrong. And if they haven't been convinced, then ideally the law keeps them in check. Naturally, because our society is so large and there are so many influences on people from different perspectives, and because societal norms are fundamentally fuzzy, people can argue for days about whether particular things are right or wrong.

And yes, cataloging the changing norms of societies is an incredible and fascinating enterprise that, even more than a hundred years from its real beginning, still has a very long way to go.

In general, you should interpret what I'm writing as descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Amezarak]

Unfortunately I waited too long to edit a response to your edit, so I have to engage in the discourtesy of double posting. :)

> There is plenty wrong with causing suffering.

What, specifically? What makes it wrong?

> I think in the case of eating animals, society is quite detached from the experience, though. That's why we shy away from watching slaughterhouse videos, why we put pictures of happy cows on cartons of milk - why such an unbelievably rosy picture must be painted to justify ruthless and horrific violence taking place all the time.

For millions of years, most people hunted down and slaughtered their own food. In many cases the animals suffered horribly, even as badly or worse than they do in our industrial farming environments.

I agree that most people are far removed from the experience of the suffering and killing of farm animals. I think that's exactly why people like you exist. Most people are raised up surrounded by puppies and kittens, not food animals, and grow up watching Disney movies full of friendly, talking animals. The majority of modern western society is far removed from the reality of life. No surprise that when confronted with excerpts from it, they respond with horror, it being utterly at odds with their prior experience.

> To the same point, the reason it is acceptable to raise and kill billions of animals are also social norms and culture. Is the hypocrisy of it all not apparent?

No. There is no larger moral framework. Morality is a social phenomena that manifests in arbitrary ways, though with humans (as with other social animals) it will always tend to some degree of in-group altrusim. There is no hypocrisy to be had because it is fundamentally arbitrary.

> It's appalling you don't recognize that not abusing sentient creatures is morally superior

This is my point. Our culturally contextual blinders generally prevent us from coming to objective conclusions about right and wrong. There is no objective right and wrong. There is no telescope science can use to inform us about moral reality. There are no sacred laws inscribed on our souls by God. Innumerable philosophers have tried to ground morality in something objective and all of them failed. This is why you keep repeating that the suffering and killing of animals is wrong, but cannot explain to me why this is so, except that is appalling that I need an explanation. It is a reality for you, insofar as it is a reflection of your feelings and tastes, but your feelings and tastes are not my feelings and tastes nor at they anyone else's; they are yours alone. History is the single best teacher of the subjectivity of morality.

There's nothing wrong (in my opinion) with having the feelings and tastes you do (and therefore the moral-philosphical positions), but you cannot convince me, or people like me, of your position by stamping your feet and asserting a moral superiority that not only does not exist but cannot exist.

> Personally, I see this as a strong denial mechanism which you may be yet unaware of.

My moral nihilism, or whatever you might choose to label it, came to fruition long before I had the vaguest idea of defending the eating of animals. Nor do I feel particularly strongly on the subject; if a law was passed tomorrow I would chiefly be annoyed at the difficulty of getting the protein/calorie ratio demanded by my workout and diet regimen.

I am not interested in the documentary, having seen plenty of examples of gratuitous animal cruelty myself, and having killed animals (legally) myself. There is no amount of suffering that a video could show me that would change my mind because I deny that the suffering is inherently wrong. I merely prefer that the suffering of animals be minimized to the extent that it can be done without raising the cost of meat significantly.

[noondip]

It seems to me, you deny objective ethics when it conveniently justifies your behavior. Only a very sad and miserable person must beg for an explanation as to why inflicting suffering is wrong. Perhaps you are yourself trapped in a cycle of fear, apathy and pain, so you don't recognize it in others? I'm not really sure what to make of it. It's quite bizarre when someone outright denies others' will not to be abused. To paraphrase another reply, the arrogance is stinky and quite palpable. I hope you will have the humility to watch the documentary I suggested after all, and perhaps even feel a little ashamed of some of the things you've said in your post.

[Amezarak]

> It seems to me, you deny objective ethics when it conveniently justifies your behavior.

I deny objective ethics always, regardless of whether it justifies my behavior.

> Only a very sad and miserable person must beg for an explanation as to why inflicting suffering is wrong.

This is what I mean. There is no real explanation as to why inflicting suffering is inherently wrong, so the natural resort (probably the evolved retort) is to assume I'm evil/wicked/sad/miserable. That's the natural response to anyone who doesn't fit in the prescribed norms, but that of course does not make it objective.

> Perhaps you are yourself trapped in a cycle of fear, apathy and pain, so you don't recognize it in others?

Well, I feel happy. :)

There is no connection between virtuosity and happiness, though many ancient writers dearly wished there was, unless society consistently punishes people who violate norms. That's been known at least since Ecclesiastes.

> I hope you will have the humility to watch the documentary I suggested after all,

Even disregarding what I said, I don't watch documentaries. Any documentary. It takes too much time for too little content that is too easily edited into propaganda, and though I don't think it is the case here, they are too often the sources touted by conspiracy theorists.

I recommend reading something more outside of your stream, perhaps Zhuangzhi or Nietzsche.