What I am referring to is your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? By contrast we do have some laws based almost exclusively on morals, which are generally based on religion, such as prohibitions against prostitution. In my opinion, the ideal legal system is one in which laws are cast around a lens of ensuring maximal freedom for all of society with restrictions only being when the logical consequence of such prohibited action would lead to 'reasonably clear' harm to society.

There indeed were absolutely abolitionists even as far back as Ancient Greece. I've no doubt the view even predates written language. Check out this writing from Aristotle [1]: "Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust." It's even interesting that he also rather directly alluded to the exact logic I laid out above, "..if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.." Reading the classics is always surprising that such wisdom and clarity could be had by a people thousands of years past. At times it seems much more so than even modern man. Perhaps division and diversion are not conducive to the development of sound reasoning abilities.

[1] - http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html

Hi. It's not easy to talk about this stuff! Ok, you've retracted the here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used talk. I was mostly distracted by your loose use of terms, as if they don't have to be used carefully.

For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? ..That's an instance of my suggestion? Are you asking that or..

your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. I don't think I suggested that; but that's how it sounds to you, ok. I'm not sure what based more on moral perspective means exactly.

Talking about your first paragraph: Rational logic seems a very strange term to use in this (or any) context. Reason, I guess you mean. Oh, so for you, ethics are based either on reason, or some mystical/religious thing. And I'm in the second camp? Your In my opinion sentence sounds exactly like Mill's On Liberty. You're talking purely about law, where the discussion was about ethics, I thought.

My motivation to write in this thread initially was objecting to the suggestion that it's better to say "I prefer to avoid eating meat" versus "Eating meat is wrong". It sounded like 'tone policing' - it's easy to insist people remain calm when you're fine with the way things are. And that "preferring" in its vague mildness, like preferring one restaurant over another, scarcely captures how I feel about such things. It would sound bizarre to say that you prefer not to be murdered, to be tortured, to be a slave etc. Probably I misunderstood the guy I first responded to, then you misunderstood me etc.

It sounds like we are in agreement, far as I can tell. I don't believe in the kind of 'moral absolute' people get from their holy book/religion. However, plain utilitarianism doesn't fit our moral intuitions either etc etc.. I'm vegan because I don't want to be killed, abused, eaten, and I figure animals don't either. And I can very easily avoid that, so I do. But I don't just prefer that; I think everyone should. It's only from habit/custom that the reality of the situation hasn't dawned on most people yet. Well, the 'consensus' seem to be today, dogs and cats deserve ethical consideration, but not cows, pigs, sheep, fish etc. There's nothing reasonable about that. It's all-too-human to think only white people matter, when you're white, or that only humans matter, when you're human. Like The Moral Landscape says, the origin of most moral/religious/ethical feelings, customs etc is that they produce better outcomes, a better world, for people, than their contrary. And whether they actually do that, can be determined a lot more often than people think; some beliefs, customs can be said to be objectively bad. Thanks.

I'm going to try to rephrase what I said above with a bit more context I as agree with you we're having a failure of communication somewhere.

The distinction and issue I am considering is between those imperatives we ought desire to encode into law as opposed to personal beliefs or opinions that ought remain something executed only at an individual level. What I've proposed is that unless an act can be shown to be unambiguously and directly harmful to a society, it ought be considered an opinion, rather than an imperative or something that is wrong enough to justify its prohibition by law. So again using the same example, would the existence of legal theft cause a clear and imminent harm to society? There would be nobody, excepting perhaps the insane, that would argue that it wouldn't. What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it without major appeals to moral views, which should relegate it to the realm of an opinion.

To go in the opposite direction, if we accept the idea of creating imperatives or laws based on moral views, it can rapidly lead to endorsing very absurd notions. For instance the countries and individuals that believe individuals should be executed for being atheist, or homosexual, or engaging in perceived blasphemy against their god or gods do so while appealing to moral views. Such actions cannot be argued to be causing directly harm to society, but they can be argued to be harming the 'moral fiber' of a society from some group's subjective perspective. These are the sort of views that ought remain subjective opinions, instead of legal and enforceable imperatives.

Ah ok, thanks for persevering.

What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it

So I think you're saying things like this because you're only considering humans (and I guess cats and dogs). The whole thing about 'ethical vegetarians' or whatever you want to call them, is they are people who don't just consider humans and nothing else when thinking about who is harmed (or rather, not just humans, cats and dogs). It seems entirely arbitrary to draw that line at the exact point between humans and everything else. At least, it's not easy to think of a reason to do this, except we are humans or I was brought up doing it this way etc, which aren't very good reasons. Whatever particular quality you choose, the line isn't there. Intelligence? Some animals are smarter than some humans, etc. For me and a lot of people, being able to feel pain, suffering, is a good line to draw. Anyway, I'm no expert, I haven't read or thought about this stuff for decades, there's a large literature on the subject, which it sounds like you don't know about, and shouldn't be saying things like "There's no clear argument against it" when you have no idea whether there is or not. (Christians think there's no clear argument against their god or their ridiculous mythology, well, it's clear enough if you aren't already a believer.) But from the evidence, it seems reasonable that animals deserve ethical consideration, not just treated like, well, like slaves, like pieces of 'meat' waiting to be exploited by humans. There's no clear argument they don't, I'd say. Although there's no clear argument is an unfortunate phrase, being so subjective.

It's why I think slavery is a useful comparison - they're not just ethical questions, but questions about who is to be even included in the ethical circle, who is worthy of consideration, respect, decent treatment. Before even considering whether they're getting it.

Also, I don't think I've heard the term moral views used like that before, it's sad that it's such a bad phrase for you. Although I'm in Australia, the country isn't full of religious people running around proclaiming their insane god-given morality unlike some, e.g. the USA.

Again, I'm not sure you're seeing the distinction between rational law and moral law. You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views. The people that argue for things like execution for atheists or homosexuals do so under the exact same perspective. By contrast, rational laws can be derived with absolutely no notion or appeal to morality whatsoever. And once again, if you start to accept morality as the basis for an imperative you're suddenly creating a far more arbitrary line that you claim to be protesting here as you want the morality of your worldview to be seen as an imperative, but not the morality of another individual's worldview to be seen as an imperative.

As a simple test here you can envision a thought experiment. Take two of the most extremely amoral individuals who disagree on everything subjective except for their own desire for self preservation and growth. And of course we have to assume they'll always tell the truth when answering these questions, and also know the other person is also telling the truth. Any law you can get these individuals to agree upon is like to be a rational law. And you'd find they would agree to not kill each other, to not steal from one another, and so forth and so on. The things they would disagree upon would be moral laws -- eating meat, belief in a god, sexual behavior, usury, relationship views, etc.

The metaphor of me not being able to see something that you can see clearly isn't a helpful one.

You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views.

I've tried to understand what you mean by the term moral views, which I've never come across before. I've tried to explain the reasons behind my thinking that people shouldn't eat animals. Given the reality and the science, it seems the most reasonable position to me. You just seem to ignore all that each time and reiterate exactly the same claim, that I have no reasons at all, that it's identical to people arguing for execution for homosexuals with no good reason at all except god says so. I don't at all buy the way you talk or think about this stuff. I don't think there's much point continuing. Thank you very much for being so civil and patient, I appreciate it! The last time I tried understanding someone's unusual views about ethics/morality on here, the guy ended it with "You sound like a retard." haha.

Morals are concerned with the subjective goodness or badness of an action. Rationality is not concerned with the nature of an action, but only with its ultimate consequences.

I've never said you have no reasons. I've said that your reasons are moralistic in nature. In other words arguing that stealing is unlawful because is stealing is bad, as opposed to arguing that stealing is unlawful because of the predictable cause and effect sequence of events that would lead to chaos and likely the very literal destruction of modern society if it were legal. Arguing based on morals is a concept that inherently feels right, as one takes a stand for what they feel is just and right. Yet it's the very sort of behavior that stands to regress and undermine the very nature of modern free and liberal societies.