Why do you consider there to be "no morality" rather than 8 billion people with their own subjective take on morality? If my moral compass allows me to kill you then certainly I'm still moral by my own measure, you just don't like my measure. Well, I don't like yours so we're even.

I'm simply trying to illustrate what's permissible without objective morality (i.e., everything). If there is no objective morality then morality isn't a "real" thing that exists. If "murder is wrong" doesn't exist objectively somewhere out there then it doesn't actually exist at all. We avoid murdering because we don't happen to find it trendy (it has been before) or because we don't have the power to actualize our will to commit murder (people have before).

I think what you're imagining is a scenario where you and some other people get together to decide among yourselves a version of morality you can force upon the world. So long as everyone is obeying your group's subjective morality it's as though an objective morality actually exists, but what makes YOUR moral code the correct one? You decide that it's because it satisfies conditions A, B, C but you just decided that those conditions had to be satisfied. I could decide that morality needs to satisfy X, Y, Z instead and conclude an entirely different system of morality that opposes yours completely. What's wrong for you, of course may be right for me. You can get the allies behind you, I'll get the axis behind me and the result is whoever is more powerful decides which subjective moral system survives. This isn't unlike the world today (sovereigns are still in the state of nature).

So I guessed right.

Edit to add: You're setting a bar for this article that we obviously don't set for a multitude of other issues, simply because you disagree with it. That's bad faith right there.

Doubt on.

Ok you’re right, but there are still a number of nutrients that are easier to obtain by eating meat and more easily digestible in meat. In addition the whole concept of not eating meat ignores the fact that today approximately 50% of the worlds fertilizer come from farm animals. This allows you to eat plants without relying on synthetic fertilizers that have a larger carbon footprint then cows.

My perspective is that things which are closer to us are weighted more highly than things which are more distant. In the same way I care more about my family than I do about society at large. Again, that's not an absolute. As I've said I don't believe in absolutes.

To be a vegetarian, you have to first be an omnivore and then decide not to eat meat. This doesn't stop you from being an omnivore. Herbivores can't make this decision; they have to eat plants. Same with carnivores. They don't get to decide.

Similarly, you can't decide to stop being an omnivore any more than you can decide to stop being a carbon based lifeform. You can only decide what to do as an omnivore.

A tiger is a carnivore, and thus there isn't a question of meat eating for them. They either eat meat or die. The same is true for an herbivore; they are not acting more ethically simply because they are incapable of surviving entirely off meat.

The fact that we're an omnivore, and thus are confronted with a choice at all, is why ethical consideration comes into play.

I doubt you make that claim when an article makes the case against human trafficking.

But the option in being an omnivore is not to stop being an omnivore but in the balance of meat and plants you will eat not in throwing one of those out

Actually humans are perfectly capable of getting all the nutrients we need from non-animal sources.

Though we cannot be healthy on meat alone, so you are partially correct to a small extent

Just because I think it's a moral issue doesn't mean that it can be assumed without question. Also, the paper treats it as a moral imperative, which is something else entirely.

The problem is that we are fundamentally animals and animals need to eat. A tiger is not immoral for eating other animals in the same way we are not immoral for eating animals, where we have a choice is in how to kill this animals and how to treat them in life, that is where morals become important

I mean you'd have to develop as to why our species would have more objective worth than any other, but sure that could be a reason though I don't see how wide scale farming would ever achieve that

Also, you're using a priori wrong.

Being an omnivore doesn’t give you the option to completely shift from carnivore to herbivore. It allows you to broaden then kinds of foods you can eat so as not to become over reliant on a particular food source

You already admitted that it is a moral issue. Just because you don't agree with the moral conclusion the author makes doesn't mean it's suddenly not a moral issue.

If the social benefits to humanity outweighed the harm to animals? I'm not saying that's true, but if it were that would for me be a reason.

[removed]

>I wouldn't call lions immoral

And neither would anyone else, unlike us they aren't moral agents and even if they were they require hunting for survival unlike us

If it's feasible to be vegan, and it is, our omnivorous predecessor is irrelevant when debating morals. Sure there are no universal morals but what is a morally consistent reason for which it wouldn't be immoral to harm animals?

What I said was:
> Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position.

Now I'm not saying there isn't a moral argument to be made, just that assuming it without question is not good philosophy.

I suppose it depends on their treatment in that case; though we usually don't eat old animals after they die from natural causes so I'm not sure this is ever going to realistically happen.

Do you have any actual arguments to support your personal view? I agree that we needn't have a morality "from above," but when your critique of the article is that it doesn't support a moral assumption, I would assume you have something more solid and supported to counter it with.

Again, that is my personal view of how a non-absolute morality could be derived, based on the concept of a 'common good' with expanding circles of commonality. I am sure there are alternative options, and am happy to consider them. What I'm not willing to consider is an imposed morality from 'above'.

What if cows were bred each year for decades so that you had a rolling supply of cows dying of natural causes? Is it ok to eat them then?