this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
232 points (72.2% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
33733 readers
3596 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
sure, there are a lot of factors that would make it difficult. If most people can't afford to be vegan (for monetary or other cost reasons especially) that reflects a failure of our food system. Our food system hasn't even gotten to the point of ensuring nobody goes hungry, we should be using our cropland to feed humans not other animals (look up how much of our crops go to livestock)
we should end the biggest problems first, and start with ending factory farms, but we should also remember that culture is not a good reason to hurt others
I suspect we disagree about the relevant definition of "others"
Almost certainly we do. But, do you think if there was a culture that ran dog fights, that would be ok just because it's part of their culture?
I would not find that ok, because all sentient beings are worth moral consideration, and culture is not a good reason to hurt sentient beings. I might not focus on it especially if that culture was already marginalized and discriminated against and there were bigger problems to solve, but I'd still have the understanding that it's bad
I don't think dog fighting is a moral issue: at worst, it's aesthetic.
Really? What about bestiality?
yea. that, too, is an aesthetic issue. it can be gross without being immoral.
We disagree very strongly
you think gross things are immoral?
I think that having sex with sentient beings without their consent is extremely immoral
sentience and consent have nothing to do with one another.
someone experiencing it should have a say in whether or not they experience it
once again, we are going to be disagreeing on the relevant definitions of "someone".
the experiencers should have a say in whether or not they experience it
this is an impossible standard, and I don't believe it's one you actually ascribe to: for instance, pretty much everyone is ok with sterilizing stray dogs and cats, and there is never a question of consent.
I don't claim to 100% live in an ideal way. I try to keep improving but I don't think I'll ever be perfect
i think in cases where consent is difficult or impossible to achieve, we should act in the best interest of the experiencer in question. But I think that example is a tough one, at first glance I think we shouldn't sterilize them, but then when I consider what will almost certainly happen if they're not sterilized I think it's probably worth doing the one bad thing to prevent worse things from happening. It's an example where I think a utilitarian approach makes the most sense, since the variables are relatively clear
and a bible believing Christian has a clear answer: it doesn't matter, you have dominion, do what you want. I imagine you don't like that reasoning, but it, to, gives clear guidance on the morality.
I'm not talking about whether you live your values, I'm suggesting you don't understand the implications of your own values, and under scrutiny you would find them internally inconsistent.
which is fine, as long as you're not going out and telling others the right thing to do.
i think I do understand them, I've thought about that problem before. Can you go into more detail on what you mean by internally inconsistent? By my understanding, situations in the world can come about where values need to be weighed, or there are only bad choices available, but that doesn't mean those values should be discarded or replaced or that they shouldn't be shared/spread.
either it's true that you can write an axiom that says "sentient beings should always consent to anything that is done to them" or you can write an axiom that says "you should always do what will bring about the most happiness or at least distress"
those axioms are in conflict with one another. it's not that there's only bad choices. it's that you've given yourself conflicting standards.
Neither of those are axioms I hold. The axiom "all sentient beings are morally relevant" does not specify how to go from there, and I am not convinced that any one ethical framework is "the one". There are some things that all the ones I'm aware of converge on with a sentientist perspective, but there are weird cases as well like whether to euthanize stray animals where they don't converge
detente
https://lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz/comment/2243561 I haven't put my views in those terms before but even here I say my views are based on sentience. I give an example, and I should have been more clear that I'm not strictly looking at the issue from a utilitarian lense although I get why it would come across that way. At base I'm a sentientist, I think there are many reasonable ways to go from there
do you have a plan to accomplish that? until such a plan is implemented, there is not even a question whether it's moral to eat meat, seafood, dairy, or eggs: most people have no volition in the matter and no one can actually change that.
I don't. I try to get people's goals to align and recognize that these are important issues, and I'm working to grow more of my own food and get in a position where I'm able to have more of an impact, but no I don't have an answer for everything and I don't need one to be able call out injustice when I see it. And like most people I'm a hypocrite in some ways, I see these massive injustices and I still buy avocados and contribute to capitalism and waste time watching tv and arguing with people online instead of using that mental energy to actually do something in the world. I'm working on being better tho
it's not clear either that this is "the biggest problem" or, if it is, that the best method of solving our ecological woes is to attack it first.