How about this argument for the broadly general permissibility of killing animals for food:
First, I require the Premise "It's not the case that killing animals is something that you should do". If you grant me that, I'm ready to construct the proof:
1. (Definition, for shorthand/convenience) Let C = "Killing animals is something that you should do"
2. (Premise) Not C
3. (From 2) Not C or H (for any statement H)
4. (From 3) Not (Not C) implies H
5. (From 4) C implies H
6. (From 5) C only if H
7. (Definition) Put H = "You are hungry"
8. (From 1, 6, & 7) Killing animals is something you should do only if you are hungty"
The derived statement saying you should only kill animals if you're hungry seems pretty permissive to me
This conclusion doesn't say anything about when we *should* kill animals, so it is completely compatible with ethical Veganism. In fact, the conclusion is completely trivial, since we assume that C is false. Consider a parallel conclusion: The moon is made of cheese only if 2+2=5. Sure, but that tells us nothing about the world. In fact, it doesn't even tell us anything about whether the moon is made of cheese: Even if we found out that 2+2=5 it would not follow that the moon was made of cheese. Likewise this conclusion tells us literally nothing about whether we should actually kill animals. It only tells us that we should only eat meat if we are hungry, but that doesn't matter since we shouldn't kill animals by stipulation.
Shhhhhh!! I'm trying to sneak in the "You'll get desert ONLY IF you finish your broccoli" fallacy, only disguising it with the grandeur of formalism. I am, after all, a Sophist. I am Harry Frankfurter's Bullshitter, a postmodernist since age 5. And I'm also a new subscriber. Pleased to meet you
"Selvet er det Forhold, som relaterer sig selv til sig selv, eller det er i Forholdet, at Forholdet relaterer sig selv til sig selv; Selvet er ikke Forholdet, men det, at Forholdet relaterer sig selv til sig selv."
make any more sense than this:
The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.
...? I've been fiddling around with it all afternoon, and the best approximation I can come up with is this:
1. Definition: For all x, S is said to be a "Self-Referential Set of x" iff x is in S
2. Definition: Rxyz is read "x actively relates y to z"
3. Definition: xAy is read "x is an aspect of y"
4. Definition: Let p be a person. Then the "Self of p" is the set of all x such that: 1. xAp, and 2. There exists a Self-Referential Set S of x such that Rxyz for all y and all z in S
Roughly translated, we say that a person's Self is the totality of all those aspects of the person that actively relate themselves to each other
I don't think it is just small bits of tastebud pleasure, it is the fact that I don't have to pay any attention to food. I have no idea what was in the grocery store sandwich I swallowed an hour ago. Something random. On the weekend I mostly had bacon and eggs, because these are the most filling (stomach pleasure, not tastebud) for the least effort. I really don't want to do things like 1) think about food 2) make decisions about what to eat 3) pay attention to cooking. It is not like I have a carnivorous diet, it is I don't have a diet at all if a diet means conscious food choices. If the random grocery store sandwich would be vegan and if it would feel filling (anything that stops the stomach burn, it would have to be the vegan equivalent of bacon or something equally fatty), I would take it. If a vegan drink would be good at stopping the stomach burn, I would never eat solid food again.
Okay, but if they’re really to avoid being fooled by your word-play and rhetoric, wouldn’t they say that your position is really that they shouldn’t *participate in a system* that kills and tortures animals merely for gustatory pleasure? And then, if they were really bold, couldn’t they object that the choice of “system” is arbitrary and that even vegans participate in that system by virtue of participating in a larger system of which the system in question is a proper part?
A lot of people just don't understand ethical vegetarianism; that's one of the main reasons for their coming up with such dumb objections.
How about this argument for the broadly general permissibility of killing animals for food:
First, I require the Premise "It's not the case that killing animals is something that you should do". If you grant me that, I'm ready to construct the proof:
1. (Definition, for shorthand/convenience) Let C = "Killing animals is something that you should do"
2. (Premise) Not C
3. (From 2) Not C or H (for any statement H)
4. (From 3) Not (Not C) implies H
5. (From 4) C implies H
6. (From 5) C only if H
7. (Definition) Put H = "You are hungry"
8. (From 1, 6, & 7) Killing animals is something you should do only if you are hungty"
The derived statement saying you should only kill animals if you're hungry seems pretty permissive to me
This conclusion doesn't say anything about when we *should* kill animals, so it is completely compatible with ethical Veganism. In fact, the conclusion is completely trivial, since we assume that C is false. Consider a parallel conclusion: The moon is made of cheese only if 2+2=5. Sure, but that tells us nothing about the world. In fact, it doesn't even tell us anything about whether the moon is made of cheese: Even if we found out that 2+2=5 it would not follow that the moon was made of cheese. Likewise this conclusion tells us literally nothing about whether we should actually kill animals. It only tells us that we should only eat meat if we are hungry, but that doesn't matter since we shouldn't kill animals by stipulation.
Shhhhhh!! I'm trying to sneak in the "You'll get desert ONLY IF you finish your broccoli" fallacy, only disguising it with the grandeur of formalism. I am, after all, a Sophist. I am Harry Frankfurter's Bullshitter, a postmodernist since age 5. And I'm also a new subscriber. Pleased to meet you
Haha, good one, I was worried you were being serious for a second there! Glad to have you on board:)
My "serious" comments would be more like this:
Does this:
"Selvet er det Forhold, som relaterer sig selv til sig selv, eller det er i Forholdet, at Forholdet relaterer sig selv til sig selv; Selvet er ikke Forholdet, men det, at Forholdet relaterer sig selv til sig selv."
make any more sense than this:
The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.
...? I've been fiddling around with it all afternoon, and the best approximation I can come up with is this:
1. Definition: For all x, S is said to be a "Self-Referential Set of x" iff x is in S
2. Definition: Rxyz is read "x actively relates y to z"
3. Definition: xAy is read "x is an aspect of y"
4. Definition: Let p be a person. Then the "Self of p" is the set of all x such that: 1. xAp, and 2. There exists a Self-Referential Set S of x such that Rxyz for all y and all z in S
Roughly translated, we say that a person's Self is the totality of all those aspects of the person that actively relate themselves to each other
I don't think it is just small bits of tastebud pleasure, it is the fact that I don't have to pay any attention to food. I have no idea what was in the grocery store sandwich I swallowed an hour ago. Something random. On the weekend I mostly had bacon and eggs, because these are the most filling (stomach pleasure, not tastebud) for the least effort. I really don't want to do things like 1) think about food 2) make decisions about what to eat 3) pay attention to cooking. It is not like I have a carnivorous diet, it is I don't have a diet at all if a diet means conscious food choices. If the random grocery store sandwich would be vegan and if it would feel filling (anything that stops the stomach burn, it would have to be the vegan equivalent of bacon or something equally fatty), I would take it. If a vegan drink would be good at stopping the stomach burn, I would never eat solid food again.
Okay, but if they’re really to avoid being fooled by your word-play and rhetoric, wouldn’t they say that your position is really that they shouldn’t *participate in a system* that kills and tortures animals merely for gustatory pleasure? And then, if they were really bold, couldn’t they object that the choice of “system” is arbitrary and that even vegans participate in that system by virtue of participating in a larger system of which the system in question is a proper part?