So, user...

Therefore humans who aren't capable of proper behaviour (ie the mentally incapable) can also be stabbed to death and consumed

Muh that's a reductio ad absurdium. Ha I got you to bite the bullet. Carnist nonsense destroyed with facts and logics every time.

The point is to show inconsistencies in carnists' beliefs. An uneducated carnist might cite intelligence as the trait which differentiates humans from animals morally while simultaneously holding the belief that retarded people are also worthy of moral consideration.
>it feels bad therefore it's bad
Yes that's what morality is

>Consuming defective humans
Kek no way dawg, you are what you eat. I'd only eat the strongest, most intelligent and resourceful homo sapes, the crem de la crem truly worthy of being cannibalized. Retards would be of more use as dog food or fertilizer tbqdesu.

Anyone with an IQ less than 150 does not qualify as human.

By now it has been scientifically established that animals, just like africans and chinese people, have no souls.

I have no idea since I don't read vegan phil but I suppose one could step back and critique the concept that humans are different than animals in the moral realm from a pomo or deterministic perpespective or maybe critique the assumption than any kind of morality requires its subjects to be also agents but I don't think there's any kind of coherent rebuttal to

>They can't use symbols
Proof of that?

>Animals are not moral agents
how do you know? a lot of animals feel shame and can make friends with other animals

>The point is to show inconsistencies in carnists' beliefs.
But his point was exactly the opposite. That and are coherent.

Nonsense. For a start we extend obvious protection to children, who we don't consider fully capable moral agents but expect to become them.
In any case we can always reason: humans in general are moral agents, therefore we assign moral weight to human life. Retards are still considered human, and thus their lives retain this moral weight even if they do not have moral agency themselves. They are still of a class of things (humans) that have it. The term "human rights" suggests something like this line of thought.
There is also the practical problem of who decides which retards can be stabbed and which can't.

inb4 you're gonna tell me you've read a book written by an elephant.

Gingers too, if that wasn't already firmly established

Attached: Capture+_2019-04-11-08-18-31.jpg (720x540, 160K)

Not even a funny retort. Please, explain how aninmals can't use symbols.

>morality is feels.
Ok I feel that you are wrong. That's the central axiom in my moral system.

But this has been proven wrong.

Read both sentences.

volition

Attached: 1553867088409.png (680x680, 188K)

I did and the second one makes zero sense.

If you had to choose between an infinite amount of people stubbing their toe (so each person stubs their toe once more than they already would at some point in their life) or one person being tortured to death, would it be logical to choose the latter because the pain "adds up" in the former scenario?

They are consistent, yes, but most people would not agree that consuming retards is okay. The aim is not to convince sociopaths as these people operate on fundamentally different axioms than the rest of society; to attempt to debate these people is akin to two people communicating in different languages. Might indeed makes right, so if enough people are convinced that they are being inconsistent in their carnism, our society can undergo a radical change and carnism can be outlawed.

what sort of retarded question is this?
I choose both, to maximise suffering of all involved in thought experiments

They can’t intentionally participate in complex state-oriented society.

That being said, they are of greater ethical consideration than the leftists who are capable of doing such a thing but decide it is wrong to do so.

that's very amusing, but what would you actually choose? I didn't come up with the question, someone asked me while insisting that one person being tortured is "morally logical"

>Circular logic
>Moral intuitionism
>The aim of discourse is to be cheap rhetorical proselytizing
I blame Adorno

Bullshit. Some animals behave in groups according to what you might call morals. Dogs in particular can participate in human society in this way to some extent. But to claim they have the same moral understanding and sense of a typical human is utterly ridiculous.

Try learning English.
Do you think it's wrong for hunting animals to kill prey to eat? Would you arrest them? Make them defend themselves in animal courts? If you think they're as morally capable of humans, then why not treat them like it?

It doesn't matter, these problems have zero practical application and moral philosophy is just post-hoc rationalization of behaviour you wanted to adopt from the beginning.

> For a start we extend obvious protection to children, who we don't consider fully capable moral agents but expect to become them
Non-sequitur; there is no expectation for retards to become non-retarded
>humans in general are moral agents, therefore we assign moral weight to human life
You're using two different definitions of human. The first is the taxonomic definition of homo sapiens; the latter is the humanist definition wherein man is a moral agent. These two should not be conflated.
>Retards are still considered human, and thus their lives retain this moral weight even if they do not have moral agency themselves
You identified moral agency as the trait which gives moral value. It follows from this that any human without moral agency isn't morally valuable.

You argue like a child, an annoying one.

Humans are rational animals.
Singer is peak anglo, in the worst way.

I'll show you the axioms of my polyaxiomatic moral system.
1: Everything I like is good.
2: Everything I dislike is bad.
The trait other humans have is that I dislike eating them and the trait animals have is that I like eating them, meaning that eating them is good. It's a coherent system.

>Circular logic
Everything starts at an axiom. You cannot justify logic without appealing to logical axioms. Therefore your belief in logic is as circular as my belief in morality.

Yeah, I agree. But how do I tell my friend he's wrong and retarded?

Actually no. The synthetic mode of philosophy got Btfod by Kant. You're gay

Ok.
But that... means war.

The post you responded to literally said it was coherent.

Yes but his post was bad becuase I don't like it. Also everyone can agree that my moral system is the best.

>You're using two different definitions of human
No, I'm only using the taxonomic one. Moral agency is a property of humans in general, not a defining trait.
>You identified moral agency as the trait which gives moral value
It gives moral value to humans as a class, and to individuals as members of that class.
If someone says humans have two legs that doesn't mean they think losing a leg means you lose your humanity.

If you don't personally bend all the teaspoons of exactly a hundred grandmothers you have to beat a puppy to death. Which one do you choose and why?

I'd bend all the teaspoons, so that I wouldn't have to inflict that sort of pain on a poor little puppy.

>implying there is such thing as an intrinsecal value which renders the killing of animals or people an imoral thing in the first place

Don't kill people tho

Attached: images.jpg (170x200, 11K)

I love dogs, but beating a puppy to death honestly sounds like less of a hassle.

I mean, let's clarify, do I have to locate these grandmothers myself? What material are their teaspoons composed of? Do they have any sort of emotional attachment to their teaspoons? Are they free to attempt to prevent me from bending their teaspoons? These are all important points to consider that you casually disregard.

>What does that even mean?
yikes

They have no knowledge of their own soul. Humans that don't have this knowledge are also animals.

>Only taxonomic
I think you'll have an extremely hard time making a biological case for your humanist ideal of Man. There are loads of people who would fit the taxonomic category of human who nevertheless exhibit no moral agency and thus stray from your ideal. This, as Stirner identified, creates a contradiction: for an individual becomes at once 'Man' and 'Unman'.

>the difference is that humans belong to a class which generally exhibits morally agency
If belonging to a class that generally exhibits morally agency is what gives you moral agency, then it follows that a really smart cow who could philosophise and engage in our moral systems would have no moral value and it would be fine to stab it to death.
Further, the question of bounds arises: why stop at humanity? All categories are ultimately arbitrary and one could argue that it is more prudent to look at races instead. Now if we take a race such as the Sentinalese, who fire upon all trespassers to their land and remain isolated from the rest of humanity, would we be justified in genociding these people and consuming them?

Fucking this. Morals are a spook that dont care about my self-interest.

Attached: 1449769761317.png (450x450, 273K)

I don't think belonging to a class GIVES you anything. Moral value should be predicated on individual traits inside individuals.