Microblog post: Not even a vegan but they’re obviously right no need to try to argue with them it’s fine to just be wrong and live your life
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

On a long enough horizon we can’t tell how anything will play out.

which is why consequentialism can't actually tell us the right thing to do. it's a fatally flawed ethical approach.

since ethics can't be derived from possible future outcomes, they must come from somewhere else. kant proposes it's the categorical imperative. divine command theorists propose from God or a holy text.

neither of those systems axiomatically say to reduce suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (2 children)

    I feel like you're getting lost in the world of abstracts. I'm talking subjective, fallible, imperfect, morality—not objective ethics.

    There is a concrete instance of a chicken that is being tortured for profit currently. If you're against that, it's morally self-consistent to avoid contributing to the system which is torturing the chicken.

    Is it not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (1 child)

    There is a concrete instance of a chicken that is being tortured for profit currently.

    i don't think that's true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago

    Ok, we're getting somewhere.

    Personally, I would consider the conditions of battery chickens torture, made worse because of the profit maximising motive.

    If you don't agree with that then this explains why we have different moral intuitions.

    I would still say my points stand because I emphasise internal moral consistency, not some appeal to an objective value system.

  • source
  • parent