(2020-08-16, 03:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]The modern world, Laird. But what exactly is that ? You mean NOW ?
Yes, now, but more particularly the methods of plant-based agriculture we have now that indigenous societies did not (as far as I know) have: in particular, machines which minimise the labour of "working the land" - especially planting and harvesting, and especially of crops like grains and legumes - and industrially mass-produced fertilisers, among other methods which I don't support so won't list.
(2020-08-16, 03:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Secondly, morals are variable, not 'set in stone'
I see morality as conceivable as a tree of principles (actually, more of a hierarchical network, but we can ignore that for now). At the top of the tree are the big, abstract principles. As the tree branches, those big, abstract principles are particularised into more specific principles which apply in more specific circumstances. At the top of the tree, those big, abstract principles are objective and uncontested. As we work down the tree, there is more scope for subjective values to influence the more particularised principles.
So, at the top of the tree I see such big, abstract, objective, and uncontested principles as "We ought not to take or harm lives unnecessarily". You can't propose a system of belief in which this fundamental principle is not honoured and still call it a "moral" system. It might be some sort of system, but not a moral one. You can, though, to an extent reasonably disagree as to how to
apply (particularise) that principle in more specific circumstances, especially in the
most specific circumstances.
So, the question becomes, is there room for a reasonable person to argue that it doesn't apply in the (more specific, particular) case of animal farming with the consequence that we ought not to farm animals? I think that the most likely way to argue that is to argue that the taking of lives in the case of animal farming is not
unnecessary but instead
necessary, because humans require meat and other animal products to survive. The mass of healthy, thriving vegans, though, put the lie to this contention.
There are a variety of other ways people try to argue, but those arguments also fail. I've gathered quite a few of them together on my page
Responding to objections to the harm avoidance principle as applied to the non-human life of our planet. Many were also covered very eloquently in the video I posted a few posts back (a while back, before our exchange began).
So, no, I don't think the observation that there is some degree of flexibility (subjectivity) in the construction of a moral system/code grants us the right to farm animals.
(2020-08-16, 03:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's very hard to argue that we aren't very cruel to animals, I certainly couldn't
And again, I appreciate that you recognise as much.
(2020-08-16, 03:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Lastly if all farming ceased, billions of humans and animals would die anyway.
I think that you intend this as an implicit argument, with the premise something like "Billions of human and animal deaths are unavoidable (inevitable)", and the (implied) conclusion something like "Therefore, we are not morally obligated to avoid those animal deaths (in farming) which
are avoidable", but I don't see how that conclusion follows from that premise - it seems to be a non sequitur. Have I misunderstood your argument? Are there perhaps missing premises?
(2020-08-16, 03:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]there is a touch of moral superiority in your approach
I think that's inevitable for any person who believes in incontestable rights and wrongs, especially people who are advocates for certain moral causes. After all, if there is an incontestable right choice, then it follows that making that choice is morally "superior" to making the incontestably wrong choice, right?
And there have been plenty of historical moral causes that we have ended up deciding as a society
were justified, such as the cause which abolished slavery, and the cause which enfranchised female voters. Most people, then, in the current day would accept that choosing not to own a slave
is morally superior than choosing to own one, in just the same way that I hope that most people in the future will see the choice not to support animal farming versus the choice to support it.
(2020-08-16, 03:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ](which doesn't serve your argument well-IMHO)
I accept this. It rankles and sometimes angers people to have that thrown in their faces, which is why these days I tend
not to throw it in people's faces (I was less cautious in days gone by), but I am willing to acknowledge it if directly questioned, as I was by you in your earlier post. After all, my aim is to convince, and putting people down is not an effective way to do that. Shocking them with the consequences of their choices can be though - e.g., showing them videos of the conditions in factory farms.
(2020-08-16, 03:51 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]knowing the high standards you set yourself, I understand and I don't want to fall out over it.
I don't want to fall out with you over this either. It is something that I feel strongly about though, so I'm not going to make unnecessary concessions on it either (whilst trying to be respectful).