Most people only act evil under anonymity, thinking they can get away with it, and can't withstand the risk of public shaming.
This applies not only to the internet, but government officials, entertainment industry execs, etc, anyone who thinks themselves safe from scrutiny.
It doesn't mean you can't be evil in public, but it does mean it's a suboptimal strategy for your own best interest.
Scarily if the public moral compass gets warped enough, then you can be evil in public and get away with it because according to the public you're not doing evil. Like Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. The definition of evil itself changes.
Luckily their social superset, the rest of the world, saw them as evil.
Makes you wonder, what are we currently doing that is evil but the entire world supports it?
China's treatment of Hong Kong and minorities comes to mind. And all the wars and massacres going on that have the full support of the first world and its media.
I also wonder what I just take for granted that future generations will see as evil. Probably eating meat, and not being responsible for negative externalities (burning hydrocarbons).
I don’t see eating meat ever getting to that level. It’d take the elevation of the rest of animal world to our level.
In my estimation they're already there. I'd be interested to here how you measure the level upon which you gain the right not to be killed for food, as we obviously measure it differently.
Seriously, how would it be measured?
I wouldn't put rights - those things based on reasoning and experience, much like the rest of the vast body of law - into a category with gods, reincarnation, gender pronouns and mythology, but that's just me.
Thanks, as a Buddhist I'm glad to hear that there are others catching up with Nagarjuna's insights, though you've still a long way to go.
> You’re admitting that your estimation is subjective.
All objectivity exists within subjectivity, I don't need to admit something I've not claimed to be otherwise.
> Why are you so worried about others eating animals, then?
There's no then, you've provided a non-sequitur, plenty of proponents of schools of thought that say all things are subjective - including us poor nominalists, the Buddhists, though not only us - find it actually strengthens our moral arguments, not obviates them.
> Because a lot of other people now are too?
Do you eat meat to be popular? Please. That kind of jibe is low grade and not for HN.
There are animals, they suffer, humans have agency, we can do better, and I care to do better. I do not act simply because I can, and I do not lack consideration for others - especially those less powerful than me - simply because those around me think it's okay. Which is ironic given your jibe about wanting to be popular, meat eaters are the majority.
What I am trying to get at when referring to other people also not eating meat is: Are you really motivated by a moral cause, or are you taking the easy route, signalling away your guilt like many of the western middle class on this forum and elsewhere?
Does your choice not to eat meat and prevent animal suffering, not really just mirror a realisation that you yourself are at the wrong end of the hierarchy?
I also have not made any claim about what others should do - are you going to keep up with the straw men? It's getting a bit long in the tooth. My initial response was about the way Koobla makes the distinction.
> Are you really motivated by a moral cause
I wouldn't call it a moral cause but a choice between suffering and not suffering.
> or are you taking the easy route, signalling away your guilt like many of the western middle class on this forum and elsewhere?
No, I'm not guilty and I'm working class and I've no need to signal virtue, I'm not religious.
> Does your choice not to eat meat and prevent animal suffering
It does reduce and prevent animal suffering, good of you to… admit that.
> not really just mirror a realisation that you yourself are at the wrong end of the hierarchy?
No. The realisation was and continues to be that my choices can reduce unnecessary suffering, for myself and others.
"Wrong end" is subjective. "Hierarchy" is subjective… Either you're going to start using terms in a normal way or you're going to remain inconsistent in your use (or, more precisely, convenient in your application) and continue to provide no argument at all.
That doesn’t mean I see have no empathy for other creatures of this world. Of course I do. Suffering or torture of animals would never be justified. But I’d never put their existence itself ahead of a fellow human’s. That’s, to me, totally asinine.
Aside: this thread escalated quickly from scamming Apple gift cards on reddit
We're omnivores, we eat meat and plants, meat is thought to have been what gave us our big brains.
https://paleoleap.com/human-brains-evolved-meat/
Hardcore vegans already think it's a horrific practice, but for most people it will just be a diet of the time, especially if future people are eating imitation meat.
The difference for you and I -and everyone else reading this- is that we now have easy access to meat-free alternatives. Plant proteins and mycoprotein are readily available in most developed countries. Machine pressed oils give us cheap access to plant-based fatty acids. Today we can easily get all of our calories and important nutrients without factory farming and/or slaughtering animals.
If you believe in sentience, and the value of it, given their low awareness, either you support never even letting them live or what?
I can understand supporting low suffering, but non-existence seems even worse somehow?
Easy to wrap yourself in weird arguments and end up in the absurd, a la Douglas Adams Restaurant at the end of the Universe.
I doubt ours is the odd position in all of this.
It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them. They're not like Mel Gibson screaming "you can take our lives".
It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals. They are generally not a happy bunch like you see in kids cartoons.
Trap some and I'm pretty sure you'll find they want to escape. They certainly understand the concept of captivity.
> It's like you believe animals are like humans, they're not, stop anthromorphising them
You could instead stop with the childish mischaracterisation of my views, of which you know little. I do not believe they are humans. I do, however, know via increasing amounts of evidence that they suffer and can experience complex emotional and social lives, and that our treatment of them is largely an unnecessary cause of their suffering.
> It also makes we wonder if you've ever lived in the country and met wild animals.
I worked in a butcher shop, I've been to working farms, I've been to cattle auctions. I wonder if you've only ever got your meat vacuumed packed in plastic and tell people you "love" bacon - but I wouldn't use that as an argument because it would be irrelevant and crass, especially on a forum like this that's supposed to represent discussion based on a higher level of reasoning amongst respectful peers.
> most animals living in the wild is a terrifying existence where they can get killed every day and struggle to find food. Putting aside battery farming, they have a life of luxury compared to their wild cousins.
You're using the same arguments people used to justify keeping slaves. They weren't any good then so I'm not sure why they'd be any better now.
If we accept that living is always morally desirable, no matter how much suffering is involved, then it leads to absurd moral conclusions. For one, it would mean that it would be ok to have a baby, then kill it to sell its organs: after all, the baby wouldn't have existed otherwise. For another, it would mean that we should try to increase the world's population as much as possible, even far past the carrying capacity of the earth, because it's better to exist in a world of extreme poverty, starvation, and war than to not exist at all.
Animals might not be aware of things like love or beauty, but I'm pretty sure that a male chick has an unpleasant experience when it's being macerated, and I don't think the couple of days it's allowed to live make up for it.
If not, why are you worried about what other animals do? You are a sentient being with the greatest ability to reason and empathise compared to any other species on the planet - their behaviour has nothing to do with your choices.
This suggestion sort of like saying "Oh, you think our country should outlaw wife-beating? Well why don't we conquer the entire world and stop every country from practicing wife-beating?"
As for domesticated animals, I think we absolutely should try to find ways to feed them without killing other animals. There are companies out there trying to make vegan cat food, and although I'm not sure whether it's good enough to keep cats healthy yet, I definitely wish them luck in achieving it.
Nearly everything.
Interesting, any references about this reputations ?
But now 25 years later I see the Internet as a tool to allow people to be downright evil. I can't believe people are or would act this way in real life.
Which is where a lot of issues on social media are coming from. People are seeing behaviour that would previously be fine among friends/with one audience broadcast to all these others, and it's revealing everyone's flaws and multiple sided behaviour to the world.