the only two obvious and indisputable conclusions in philosophy are atheism and veganism.these positions are so unpopular that they have to lie to themselves and others that there's genuine debate on the subject to keep themselves employed.
>>25274058I dunno that sounds quite self defeating
>>25274058I agree, that seems almost contradictory. If you're an atheist and not high on copium, then you don't believe in objective morality. Ergo, there's no objective reason to not eat animals, merely subjective ones.
>>25274058>don't enjoy life bro, otherwise you're evilThis is all the work of Christianity with no reward of salvation at the end.
>>25274133>le morality requires le godall moral argument boils down to observable pragmatic reasons to set up rules and follow them yet it is truly ironic the christkike insists that without an wrathful enforcer in they sky they - erm ahem, "you" would just oblige your most animal instincts and devolve into barbarism, like those dirty pagan greeks
>>25274058Atheism isn't a position, it's the absence of one: literally non-belief in a god. If the question isn't "Does God exist?" but instead "what is the nature of reality and our place within it?" the inadequacy of atheism as a position is revealed. Of course whether or no deity(s) exist is part of the question, but the atheism/atheism debate reduces the whole of ontology to this one issue. There are materialist atheists, panpsychic atheists, process-relational atheists, solipsist atheists, etcetc.The modern purpose of the label 'atheist" is political, for the purpose of erecting a big identarian tent to oppose theistic intrusions in social and/or political life. Without such an opposition the term becomes meaningless and we're back at the much more meaningful question as to the nature of reality.As for Veganism, the horrifying mistreatment of livestock animals has a lot to do with the view popularized by Descartes that animals are soulless automatons with no conscious experience. This misconception did great violence both to early biological investigation. Modern science has corrected this, and the evidence for many species being conscious grows, including some insects such as ants and bees, and perhaps spiders. For serious minds concerned about matters of ethics, the fact that animals are conscious and can suffer greatly is irreconcilable with the way we treat livestock. The response is usually to recommend veganism, which has with it an additional ecological benefit (Raising animals for food is much less efficient than growing plants and fungi for food.)
>>25274144So, hence if someone breaks into my house and I'm starving, I can not only kill him in self defense but eat him as well? Who makes up this shit? Sounds like oo-aa monkey business.
>>25274058This but unironically
>>25274183>Atheism isn't a position, it's the absence of one: literally non-belief in a god. If the question isn't "Does God exist?" but instead "what is the nature of reality and our place within it?" the inadequacy of atheism as a position is revealed.Philosopher and historian John Gray would disagree vehemently that atheism, no matter how anti-foundational, cannot escape the religious framework which has been the dominant mindset in both the east and west, but mostly the latter. Its less of a non-belief and more a shifting of the object of worship to something more tangible like humanity, history or the scientific process. People will always have their idols.>As for Veganism, the horrifying mistreatment of livestock animals has a lot to do with the view popularized by Descartes that animals are soulless automatons with no conscious experience. This misconception did great violence both to early biological investigation.Oh please. Peter Singer, following in the tradition of utilitarians like Bentham asserts pleasure for the most is the highest good. His solution? Instead of eating animals we ought to engage in sexual relations with them.
>>25274058I agree
>”studies” philosophy>arrives at “positions”
