You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, which isn't this. The concept of the 'common good' is a perfectly valid basis for a moral perspective. The issue is around what counts as 'common', who (or what) is in the community. What you are suggesting is no morality at all. I think that's a stupid position to adopt.

Ain’t it funny just how un-absolute and un-objective morality really is.

You haven't really supported that argument either, other than simply stating your preferred hierarchy.

[removed]

Sure but there is no objective morality so all morality is simply a matter of opinion. There's nothing real about morality, it's just that a mode of behaviour is more or less trendy within the "social group, society at large, humanity," and so on. You didn't have to explicitly state that was the case, it follows from your assertion that it must be the case. If there is no objective good then good is whatever I say it is and I can do whatever I like so long as I have the power to do so (e.g., "the state of nature"). It's actually a pretty rational take on things if you don't believe in objective morality. The Romans weren't wrong to the Romans. The Nazis weren't wrong to 9/10 Germans. Whether Alexander was great or terrible depends on where you lived. It's not a novelty.

Indeed, but their welfare does not trump other issues.

I Have always had a certain lack of clarity with vegetarianism and veganism, even though my own mother is one. I wouldn't call Lions imoral, for example. I suppose that you could argue that as we are on top of and can subvert the global ecosystem, we have a special requirement to not create unnecessary suffering for those poor animals with a disadvantage in cognition. It seem that we have a species wide vanity that we are separate from nature, not apart from it.

But of course, I'm ignoring the whole point of this post. This is probably the objectively wisest and most moral choice for a whole host of reasons. But as this technology develops, we cannot just ignore the argument that can be rooted in the question: "why do we even care?"

Reminds me of Marcus Aurelius and makes me react in a neutral thought. Whether in hardship or bliss; this too shall pass.

My personal take is that if you're talking about the survival of one animal vs. the survival of another animal, then we're discussing something more primordial than ethics. That is; the prerequisites for ethics haven't been met.

If we're talking about eating an animal simply because it's pleasurable, though, then I think you'd have to somehow find a way to justify that animal's suffering and death to create that pleasure and I'm not sure this is possible to ethically justify.

Yes, so, coming back to your original comment, talking about how we ought to treat them very much IS a moral issue.

Sure, in marginal cases. But arguments from marginal cases don't make good day to day ethics.

Animals form part of the biosphere.

Animals don't belong in any of those categories for ethical consideration?

Is it ever okay to kill an animal for food?

Which is exactly why people are commenting that this isn't philosophy/ethics. Easier to dismiss outright than face something they don't want to acknowledge.

That's very much not what I said. In my opinion, ethics should be based on the ways to act which are best for, in descending order, the social group, society at large, humanity, the biosphere and the universe as a whole. There will be competing interests here, of course, and for me that is the valid area for ethical debate.

I have an answer for the question "Is free will real": Since the time we are born, we are exposed to repetivie behauviour: waking up, having breakfast, getting dressed etc. At some point, these actions become almost completely instinctive, like if they were completely unintentional and separated from real will. We should also consider that, if you feel like you have no free will, It means that you realized that you have no complete control over your brain or body. And this also proves that the mind is different from the brain.

I don't know of an ethical framework that's yet been able to launch a successful defense for eating meat, honestly.

[removed]

Well, sure, I agree that an externally imposed ethics isn't the best. At the same time, this doesn't excuse us from ethics. We still have to be able to create an ethical justification for meat consumption. I'm not aware of one, but should one emerge, then it would lend more weight to the decision to eat meat.

Ok?

So everything is permitted - so long as you can get away with it I suppose. Good and evil are just a matter of what's trendy.

Some of the 'arguments' vegans come up with suggest you could be wrong.

Sure, but don't you think you'll end up at a different conclusion depending on where you start? What ethical framework are you using for your own conclusions?

Absolutely I'm arguing there is no objective morality unless you believe in a transcendent Deity who defines such a morality. I don't.