Comments by "Deus Ex Homeboy" (@DeusExHomeboy) on "The ethics of eating animals | Peter Singer, Peter Egan, Christopher Belshaw and Mary Ann Sieghart" video.

  1. Gavin, look, all this elaborate display of mental gymnastics is all well and good, but your whole argument can be used to justify rape, slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape, rape, forced impregnation, murder, thievery, deception, literally anything. Basically, appeal to nature, or physics, or anything else is a bad argument. The more broad and vague you make your justifications, the more space they have for logical gaps. Edit: Imagine raping a baby after giving it gratitude for being a lifeform and thanking it for letting a more superior human utilize it. ALSO - Almost every lifeform with a brain on this planet is sentient. You need to correct your understanding of the word. "Sentience" evolved in brains way before humans even came close to existing, thanks for the specie-wide compliment though.
    5
  2. No action is inherently moral or immoral. Firing a gun is only immoral if there's a sentient, innocent organism in the way of the bullet, but it's not immoral if done in self-defense/preservation. Eating meat isn't inherently immoral. The immoral aspect only emerges when an innocent organism suffers/dies without its consent, by the actions of an organism that understands consequences (this is important because there are organisms {even young humans, and humans with mental disabilities} who do not possess enough cognitive range or information to understand consequences. However, since the universe has objective, fixed laws, that implies there is no pure subjective morality within it. Every system within a deterministic universe will possess deterministic properties. the feeling of subjective morality only emerges in the interpretations of limited organisms, such as you and us. Subjectivity emerges due to a lack of sufficient information, and the dependency on the interpreter's biological limitations. So to reduce it to the meat argument - It's immoral to be a contributor in the death of a sentient organism, to eat it WHEN OTHER OPTIONS EXIST, which is the case for almost every single human living within the convenient sphere of human civilization. In a situation when no other options are available, the context changes, and killing another organism to ensure one's survival becomes morally acceptable. But even in that situation, there are people who'd chose to let themselves die. Also- there's no nutrient/mineral/etc within an animal's body that cannot be sourced elsewhere, so the 'eating meat for health' is a bogus, invalid argument.
    4
  3.  @BlissBlessHappiness  Sadly a deterministic universe implies that rob Edwards will either continue like this, or stop eating animals. But what will happen is already decided since universal laws got locked in. He needs to experience something that matches his configuration to cause a change. I doubt words are it.
    3