Said this elsewhere before, communists will pull out every liberal excuse when being criticized from the left about veganism.
"They're mean"
"Acktshually it's not as good for x as you think"
"What about x group of people that this will impact" (who haven't even expressed opposition or concern about the issue)
"You just care too much"
Same vibes as supposed progressives who are sharing pro-Israel PragerU vids after criticizing PragerU on other topics.
Ideally every comrade is vegan, but if for whatever reason you cannot be or are working towards it then at the absolute least you can support those who are and accept that it is the morally correct position instead of all this hoop jumping
Same vibes as supposed progressives who are sharing pro-Israel PragerU vids after criticizing PragerU on other topics.
Ideally every comrade is vegan, but if for whatever reason you cannot be or are working towards it then at the absolute least you can support those who are and accept that it is the morally correct position instead of all this hoop jumping
Can you explain how the continued mistreatment and exploitation of animals is moral?
Would you make the same claim if this were instead some trans rights debate and I claimed supporting trans people is the morally correct position even if you are certainly Cis and do not know a single trans person?
It's not a 1:1 analogy for sure, but I think it captures a similar idea
What would it mean for there to be objective moral facts? It would mean that there are true moral statements that live outside of every cultural framework in some sort of transcendent manner, and to arrive at those moral facts would require an individual be able to step out of their subjective, culturally inculcated existence. And as well all know, subjectivity is not the sort of thing you can just step out of.
When you start talking about objective moral facts, you can start talking about societies that fail to adhere to those moral facts as being deficient. And from there it's a quick hop skip and jump to genocide. Which is how this has played out historically.
I can see the the slippery slope consequences you describe coming into play, but I struggle to see how that negates some facts such as "Rape is morally wrong"
Said this elsewhere before, communists will pull out every liberal excuse when being criticized from the left about veganism.
"They're mean" "Acktshually it's not as good for x as you think" "What about x group of people that this will impact" (who haven't even expressed opposition or concern about the issue) "You just care too much"
Same vibes as supposed progressives who are sharing pro-Israel PragerU vids after criticizing PragerU on other topics.
Ideally every comrade is vegan, but if for whatever reason you cannot be or are working towards it then at the absolute least you can support those who are and accept that it is the morally correct position instead of all this hoop jumping
“I dream of a world in which I would be executed as a reactionary.”
"wait, no"
Sorry for the cliche response, but really. This.
Okay veganism is one thing but moral realism is where I draw the line.
Can you explain how the continued mistreatment and exploitation of animals is moral?
Would you make the same claim if this were instead some trans rights debate and I claimed supporting trans people is the morally correct position even if you are certainly Cis and do not know a single trans person?
It's not a 1:1 analogy for sure, but I think it captures a similar idea
I'm denying the existence of objective moral facts in a tongue-in-cheek fashion not calling into question any particular one.
Ah I got ya. To be honest I'm not very well read on the topic, but I do believe there are such instances.
What is the reasoning in there not being an objective moral position on anything?
What would it mean for there to be objective moral facts? It would mean that there are true moral statements that live outside of every cultural framework in some sort of transcendent manner, and to arrive at those moral facts would require an individual be able to step out of their subjective, culturally inculcated existence. And as well all know, subjectivity is not the sort of thing you can just step out of.
When you start talking about objective moral facts, you can start talking about societies that fail to adhere to those moral facts as being deficient. And from there it's a quick hop skip and jump to genocide. Which is how this has played out historically.
I can see the the slippery slope consequences you describe coming into play, but I struggle to see how that negates some facts such as "Rape is morally wrong"
You and I both believe that earnestly and full-throatedly, but we are not acultural objective knowers.