Discussion Veganism

What I'm having a hard time to grasp is humanism as a moral philosophy.
Maybe someone can answer me here, but if you're an atheist and believe in objective morality, on what ground do you base yourself ?
In my eyes, if God doesn't exist, isn't the only base for morality the rule of nature and evolution, hence the law of the strongest ?
 
Nihilma said:
What I'm having a hard time to grasp is humanism as a moral philosophy.
Maybe someone can answer me here, but if you're an atheist and believe in objective morality, on what ground do you base yourself ?
In my eyes, if God doesn't exist, isn't the only base for morality the rule of nature and evolution, hence the law of the strongest ?
Click to expand...
Well, it's simple. People generally enjoy being in society, so even as an atheist, you can argue that morality is good for society and for each of its individuals, so it should be preserved. Egoists can say that the existence of societal morality avoids unnecessary problems in interaction between two people.
The second is the basis of international relations and agreements. That is why international standards of relations between countries before 1945 did not really touch the issue of the war itself, but the behavior during the war was strictly regulated. Not because it is morally good to have mercy to the enemy's soldiers, but because if you have mercy to the enemy's soldiers and the enemy has mercy to your soldiers, you will both have more soldiers to continue the war and the victory will not be a Pyrrhic one.
I remember reading about how the French fought alongside the Ottomans and instructed them not to brutally execute captured enemy soldiers. The Ottoman commanders didn't understand what was wrong, because torturing a defeated enemy was fun and they did it all the time. But if you do not return captured soldiers alive, the enemy will not return your soldiers to you.
 
TeeRanney said:
Well, it's simple. People generally enjoy being in society, so even as an atheist, you can argue that morality is good for society and for each of its individuals, so it should be preserved. Egoists can say that the existence of societal morality avoids unnecessary problems in interaction between two people.
The second is the basis of international relations and agreements. That is why international standards of relations between countries before 1945 did not really touch the issue of the war itself, but the behavior during the war was strictly regulated. Not because it is morally good to have mercy to the enemy's soldiers, but because if you have mercy to the enemy's soldiers and the enemy has mercy to your soldiers, you will both have more soldiers to continue the war and the victory will not be a Pyrrhic one.
I remember reading about how the French fought alongside the Ottomans and instructed them not to brutally execute captured enemy soldiers. The Ottoman commanders didn't understand what was wrong, because torturing a defeated enemy was fun and they did it all the time. But if you do not return captured soldiers alive, the enemy will not return your soldiers to you.
Click to expand...
You don't understand my question, this is just pushing it back a step.
Why is the greater good of humanity... good ? You can say that you think it is good, but some people throughout history have claimed that the greater good of humanity is indeed bad. Why should they be wrong ?
 
Nihilma said:
You don't understand my question, this is just pushing it back a step.
Why is the greater good of humanity... good ? You can say that you think it is good, but some people throughout history have claimed that the greater good of humanity is indeed bad. Why should they be wrong ?
Click to expand...
It's a matter of personal profit and natural selection. If you believe that the greater good for the society or group of people to which you belong is bad, and you act according to this belief, you either die or you will be removed from this society. What difference does it make whether you are right or wrong if you are dead? Since most people are not stupid and want to survive, even as atheists they will accept ideas that will allow them to survive.
 
TeeRanney said:
It's a matter of personal profit and natural selection. If you believe that the greater good for the society or group of people to which you belong is bad, and you act according to this belief, you either die or you will be removed from this society. What difference does it make whether you are right or wrong if you are dead? Since most people are not stupid and want to survive, even as atheists they will accept ideas that will allow them to survive.
Click to expand...
Yeah okay but why would dying be objectively bad ?
I'm not taking a utilitarist approach to things here, but I am asking a simple question : In an atheistic worldview, if you belueve in it, how do you argue for OBJECTIVE morality ?
That's the thing, suppose suddenly someone is strong enough to live alone, to not care, and is also somehow strong enough to erase the rest of humanity and live eternally ? Why would the destruction of the whole of humanity for his pleasure be wrong ?
 
Because if objective morality doesn't exist in an atheistic worldview, then I don't get how veganism makes sense in a humanistic philosophy.
The human is strong enough to dominate on other animals, why should he care for their sufferings ?
 
Your answers are always rooted in a gain and loss mentality.
But why is gaining morally good and losing morally bad ?

That's the thing, objective morality to me is something that cannot be defined without an absolute authority to rule over it, because if it isn't there we're left with our own subjectivity which in our individuality differs from that of others. In other word, humanism can only care for subjective morality, which is the definition of the law of the strongest
 
soy said:
>isn't the only base for morality the rule of nature and evolution
only if you consider the rule of nature to be a universal good. in a godless world the base for morality wouldn’t be the rule of nature and evolution, there wouldn’t be any base, period. the rule of nature and evolution wouldn’t have any significance beyond our own subjective interpretations
Click to expand...
Also yeah this was what I was arguing for, in the sense that what is good is defined by the strongest because he can impose his will on others. Therefore what he says is good is good. Now if there is an absolute strong one that by definition cannot be beaten and is above everyone, before everyone and ultimate in every aspect, then yes objective morality can by this very principle be defined by him
 
i think everything's in god's hands ultimately and god told us to consume animals as we will so i continue to eat meat knowing that we'll always have enough to live until god returns, yet, i'm very much against the industrial torture they put animals through to make a lot of our food, as well as the animal testing and experimentation that also kills them in such horrible, horrible ways
 
As the aryans of iran and the indian subcontinent were among the first vegans so am I and it will remain that way until i die.
 
Back
Top