DIALOGUE: What can we kill? (with Alex O’Connor)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- In this episode Trent sits down atheist Alex O’Connor (aka The Cosmic Skeptic) to discuss the ethics of killing animals and human beings. They discuss issues like factory farming, euthanasia, abortion, and whether only God explains human value.
Alex one second: "Living beings have a right to life and to not suffer, including animals."
Alex a bit later: "Those things which we call "rights" are just concepts which we make up for societal resolution."
Bruh, which one?
I think both things can be true. I do think that "right" should be an exclusively legal term describing a range of actions a human can in principle perform and that the State tries to guarantee all its citizens should be able to perform. In that sense, animals do not have the right to life and not suffer, because no state on Earth has outlawed killing flies.
So unless this guy lives on another planet that is empiriclally wrong but it is not logically incoherent.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Oh, I hear you. But the issue is that he assumes a right which is NOT legal. Notice that he is fighting against that thing which is allowed by law (the eating of animals), and so Alex's definition of right would seem to be opposed to a legal grounding.
Atheist is always deluded with their own mind.
@@unapologeticapologetics6953 One can say that the absence of a right is morally wrong and can fight to get it working. Or to be very unwieldy one could say that if something is a moral right, it is worth it to try and make it an actual right, a moral right being a right that "ought be there".
I still have trouble following this guy, his exposition of his position is too unprecise for me.
@@tafazzi-on-discord I agree! But the issue is that Alex assumes no objective moral values, and as such, he has no logical and authoritative reason to argue for the reforms that he desires.
You are correct, but you are not describing Alex's position. You are describing a different one.
Definitely will pray for you Trent!
This was a fascinating discussion! I’m a little out of my depth but I was able to follow along. Thank you so much for having real dialogues with very thoughtful opponents. Not once did I hear a backhanded remark. Respectful and civilized. We need more!
Prayers sent Trent. Thank you for being a big part in my conversion.
I will pray for you. God bless you and protect you always...amen
“We know he’s taken over printers” 🤯 yesssss! It all makes sense now! Praying for you Trent. 🙏🏽
Trent asking for a prayer so his ministry can be protected from the technical side reminds me of David Pawson asking for the same protection when he's preaching about the book of Revelation.
It's quite something if you find your favorite preachers from different denominations asking for a same type of prayer 😅
I'm praying for you, Trent!!
Just want to say the thumbnail game of the channel has improved DRASTICALLY. Great work🔥
I have noticed the closer to God and the church I get the more I get attacked especially if I try and help others Ooooo I really get attacked. It’s usually before I even have an idea of what will happen. Of course I will pray for you Trent and I’m sure others here will gladly do the same and may God Bless your work and Bless you and your family always 🙏🏼🕊❤️
A zygote is merely a stage of a person's physical development. One must avoid conflating value based on its stage of development versus the value based upon its nature. Humans at any stage are valuable.
Exactly, and his attempt at a reductio ad absurdum by saying he used to be star dust doesn't work, because while it may be the case that the matter that makes up his body is "star dust", it's not the case that Alex used to literally be a star or something, whereas we were all literally zygotes.
@@jasonwolfe2991 Very well observed. Such is the recourse and conclusions based upon untenable premises which are ultimately rooted in pride.
No “human” ,born or otherwise, has a right to someone else’s bodily resources against their continued consent.
Unless I am missing something this guy you're dialoguing with is positively incoherent. You did a good job of wriggling out of his attempts at traps and nailing him to the wall.
Emotivism. What a world.
@Tercio Novohispano Yes, I can't believe he keeps bringing up a deer falling down in the woods and getting a boo-boo as a knockdown argument against God.
@Tercio Novohispano How is an emotivist by definition irrational? An emotivist believes people make moral judgments based on how it makes them feel. I might have discovered that I am an emotivist.
@@josephpostma1787 Emotivism, at least discussed here, is deeper than a description of how and why people make their moral choices, as you’ve put it. What emotivists hold is that any and all moral statement and judgements are fundamentally descriptions of emotional states. A person saying “you ought not murder” is, at rock bottom, just expressing disapproval, merely saying “I don’t like murder”. Under your description, emotivists can still hold to the sorts of categorical imperatives that Trent holds to, but this is clearly not the case. Emotivists do not believe in categorical imperatives.
@@Zosso-1618 If you take out the "fundamentally", I suspect that emotivism is generally the case, and when it is not the case, your emotions often come to agree with the earlier ethical proposition.
What is meant by "categorical imperatives"?
@@josephpostma1787 Yeah if you take out fundamentally, you stop dealing with actual emotivism lmao
Dear Trent, Yes, will pray for you! I would recommend blessing your electronic devices with Holy Water before you start (You don't have to sprinkle it, just dip your finger in the water and make the sign of the Cross on your devices) If you can, I would also recommend praying the entire Rosary before you start any video or recording, or at least a decade. Also, I think it is good to remind your followers to pray for you, your mission, and your family. The more you remind, the more we will remember to keep you in our prayers as well! God Bless =)
Pro-life vegan here. I think people are misunderstand Alex. He is not against killing animals and for killing babies. He is against causing either babies or animals to suffer. Alex isn't "pro choice until birth." He believes when a baby can suffer (well before birth), that's when abortions become morally messy. Likewise, he isn't against killing animals, he is against causing animals to suffer.
Anyone who thinks this topic is simple isn't really engaging with the arguments.
Very faulty argument by which you'd be allowed to kill a hermit who has no friends or family to mourn him (e.g. in his sleep, such that he doesn't suffer one second)
I genuinely don't intend to be rude or dismissive, but the more dialogues and debates I hear with Alex, the less seriously I take him and his views. Eventually, it seems like he's creating more and more tenuous and abstract objections just so he doesn't have to concede points. I don't really have this problem with other modern atheists. Nevertheless, I pray for Alex.
Alex: "It's a consistency problem."
Actually, no it is not. Because Alex is assuming that you are inconsistent when you are not. If I state "I find no issue with killing non-human animals for human survival, and I find it right to keep humans alive," then there is no contradiction. Alex only claims a contradiction because your views are in contradiction with Alex's views. Alex is sadly in great error when he states that he is looking for internal consistency is someone else's system.
Yup. He is more interested in what amounts to trivial brain teasers than any real deep thought. Despite his oversized brain and education. I find him to be one of the least interesting people in these debates.
What if killing non-human animals is not necessary for human survival?
@@jacob18310 Human survival is far too low a bar there. We are meant to steward the earth, but that doesn't mean to coddle all the animals at the expense of humans. Those animals would otherwise not exist / be eaten soon within nature if I didn't eat them.
If it makes people happier than the alternative and has the same or lower overall cost (eg a direct and total benefit) then eating animals is fully justified because humans and animals are not on the same moral plane.
One example is those fake meat burgers - they're horrible for you, and they tend to be more expensive. Ditto for almond milk vs cow milk, etc.
I agree that there's no contradiction, though for example, if I state "I find no issue with punching people who have names beginning with J, but I find it wrong to punch people who have names beginning with E" there's no contradiction, yes, but it's inconsistent. You need a reason to separate the two claims so that one is okay and one is not.
Alex most likely believes there is not enough of a substantial difference between humans and animals; from this one could infer that if killing one is wrong, to be consistent, killing both should be wrong. That's probably why he argues that it would be inconsistent to believe otherwise. Just because there's no contradiction does not mean something is consistent, at least in the way that he is using the word.
If the only misunderstanding was the use of the word consistent then this should clear it up hopefully
@@68m8rz I hear you, but Alex cannot call that position "internally inconsistent." In the same way that it isn't at all inconsistent to say "I am fine with punching people whose names starts with J, but will not punch people whose names start with E." This actually is not an inconsistent belief at all. It is just, by itself, UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Alex claimed that people just reject veganism because they don't want to give up the taste of meat. My wife and I used to be vegans for over a year and went over two years without eating any meat. We have a stack of dietary and nutrition textbooks and really tried to make veganism work while actually getting all the nutrients and vitamins we need. My wife started experiencing some health problems (I'll spare you the details) and so we decided to be vegetarian again, and then in a few months started eating meat again too. We didn't miss meat or crave it, we just wanted to eat a healthy diet and actually feel healthy again (and full!). There's lots of people who have gone through similar experiences, and you can find lots of videos of ex-vegans talking about how sick they got eating that way. I just wanted to share that for the folks who think people only eat meat for the taste.
I think many people eat meat for taste. Not everyone, but many people do.
I do believe many go vegan and have health problems. I do aware that.
But, if even we eat meat for healthy life. It doesnt justify the meat we eat came from industrial farming.
However, industrial meat can be justify in some cases.
If i lived in poor country,and cheap industrial meat is only meat that i can afford. Then, it is justify for you to eat industrial meat.
I myself is vegetarian. Sometime i eat cake that contain milk. Reason i eat that because it taste good and i cant resist it. So if someone call me wronf, i admit it. It wrong base in my moral standard but i did it anyway, because it is really hard to become strict vegan.
That's extremely interesting because I remember Jordan Peterson saying that going from Vegetarianism to a carnivorous diet, actually was how he not only lost weight, but prior health issues disappeared as well
@@robinrobyn1714 But JP also ended up in and out of hospitals for years after switching to an all beef diet. It may be due to coming off meds, but I do believe eating only beef contributed to his decline in health.
for me its not the taste of meat. To me a veggie pizza has more flavor.
Its I literally feel more nourished from eating meat, and veggies dont do well with my IBD. FOr me, if we get lab grown meat that is real animal meat without the suffering, that is the most desirable moral state.
@@vela-6 he didnt eat nly beef, just beef and green vegetables
I really enjoyed your discussion with Alex, Trent. I think you both are a perfect counterpart to each other. You have different beliefs obviously but you guys almost tackle the same philosophical issues, I mean just like what Alex said, he talks about Atheism and Ethical issues especially on the issue of animal rights while you talk about Theism particularly Catholicism and of course Ethical issues concerning the issue of the unborn rights. I hope you have more dialogue with him in the future.
The unborn at any stage are not potential human beings, but human beings with potential.
A parasitic clump of cells with no brain activity is not a human nor has special rights over a woman’s bodily autonomy.
@@2l84me8 Thanks very much for your reply. I have some questions for you.
Ok, so would it be correct to infer that humans beget parasites?
Also, would someone in a coma or with 100% Alzheimer's disease lose his status as a human?
Thirdly, would a prisoner of war or a stow-away on a ship, who would be dependent for sustenance on his captors, be considered a parasite?
@@MM22272 A zygote or fetus is functionally no different from a parasite in that regard. It doesn’t have special rights to violate someone else’s bodily autonomy even if it were biologically independent. Your questions regarding comatose states and cannibalism aren’t relevant to this discussion nor do they apply.
@@2l84me8 Is a zygote or fetus human such with its own DNA and blood type? To commit a violation (as you characterise human gestation) requires moral conscience and free will. Since at that stage of human development these faculties are not operational, how could a human zygote or fetus violate his mother?
Try re-reading my previous comment. You won't find any comments regarding cannibalism. Evidently you somehow assumed that.
On the other hand, only if you are able, try again to answer the questions.
@@MM22272 Why are you asserting that a parasitic relationship requires free will or morals? That’s completely irrelevant to this topic.
You mentioned something regarding captors and sustenance, so I assumed you were making an analogy to cannibalism.
I will include your safe keeping in my Holy Rosary today Trent. Regards from Australia, Gary.
Here two people are discussing. One who wants to save children and agrees to kill animals. One who wants to save animals and agrees to kill children.
Is there really any need to discuss? I love Alex, but sometimes simple truths are enough.
Begging the question and apolegetics, name a better duo
It seems that Alex thinks something like animals that can suffer should not suffer if possible including humans. I do not think that Alex believes that unborn animals can suffer, so, unborn human animals also cannot suffer.
You glorify a god who actually kills children
@@josephpostma1787if suffering is the lens through which to judge any action, then ending all life would be the most moral action (there can be no suffering if there is no life). So, this is an absurd line of argumentation
Praying for you. God bless you and protect you.
Great conversation. I wish you two had more time to flesh out the theological/biological issues you discussed at the end.
HEY SO I'm a Catholic vegetarian (lapsed vegan!) who works in a lab where we breed and euthanize large numbers of mice and rats for life-saving medical research...I listened to this at work earlier today and my head has been spinning since...I have soooo many thoughts but the main one is that I wish you guys touched on the ethics of animal testing in medical research, since it seems like a case where you'd both be okay with ending an intelligent animal life (and rats are very intelligent with individual personalities) to save human lives, but you'd justify it for different reasons and see different moral implications from it?
Yeah great job RCC.. flip flop doctrines. Mary worship (sickening) or... Hiperdulia excuse me.. purgatory definitely exists, praying to saints clearly scriptural... Holy water, hail Marys, yes.. I should definitely listen to their interpretation.. a church with more blood on its hands than Heinrich Himmler. O and the inspired books of the Bible were already known before they apparently compiled them if youre going to use that lame arguemnt. O please protect us Mary, Queen of Heaven.. how sick. Not to mention Cardinals with their hundred thousand dollar outfits while people eat dirt cookies.. and their gay bars . I'll pass..o and Jesus doesn't turn into a wafer shaped like the sun.. he was figuritively speaking 100x in His ministry but the time he said to EAT HIM.. THATS when He was being literal. Give me a break..
@@anonymous.1303 Word salad diarrhea
It's morally acceptable to kill an animal for the benefit of a human. It is morally unacceptable to cause an animal to suffer unduly. If your work is benefiting a human by killing an animal, do not make it suffer unduly.
@@461weavile Isn’t unduly suffering dependent on a kind of subjective view?
@@lt3746 yes. We're not robots. Not everything is as simple as find where the line intersects the axis.
Question for Trent: Can you do an episode on the evolution and ensoulment issue you guys were discussing at the end of the video, tying in the different Christian views and approaches you alluded to?
This was intriguing when Alex brought it up, Im liking this comment, hoping it gets seen
there is a lecture on the "thomistic institute" channel about it, it's called Did Christ Die For Neanderthals.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Thanks, I'll check it out.
Trent, when are you interviewing Shia LaBeouf? Jk, great video! I found Alex's principles very arbitrary and ad hoc.
We will pray for you. Thank you for this invitation.
Peace.
I actually find the clarification of rights and duties to be a really great qualifier
Alex is brilliant and far far more intelligent than me. But I just don’t know how someone with a logically consistent worldview could be vegan and pro-abortion (pro-choice) I just don’t get it. You show more deference to the animals than the human baby. The main reason I can’t take any animal rights/vegan people seriously is because they are almost always the most radical pro abortion people and I just don’t get that and don’t consider those people to be serious in anyway except they feel the cow to be helpless and cute but they see babies as an inconvenience that should be killed. And they can rationalize it through these high minded ideas but at the end of the day they feel more for a dead animal than for a dead baby so they advocate for one instead of the other. I can only take a vegans serious if they are also extremely pro life. Because I often feel like vegans aren’t pro animal they are just anti human and would rather drag the value of humans down instead of pushing the value of animals up.
Vegan pro-lifer here, just letting you know that we do exist and are not as rare as you might imagine!
@@laurameszaros9547 I'm glad your more consistent then Alex and I definitely have sympathies for the vegan argument, but my anecdotal guess is that 5% of vegans are pro life.
I heared people say things like "I am (vegetarian) but I don't want to outlaw hunting or farming, I also would not want to ban abortion even though I wouldn't do it myself"
The pro life position is stronger than "abortion is wrong", we stand for statal intervention to prevent that from happening.
@@Wolfschanzeful Unfortunately I think you are probably right on that one. However I will say that it was only after I became vegan that I grew towards the pro-life position. Only after I became vegan did I start to consider the little thing that can't speak for itself in the human as well as the animal context.
@@laurameszaros9547 very interesting. Kinda shows that you were also once part of the vegan pro "choice" crowd too. I'm really glad that veganism was the catalyst for you. Maybe that's a good learning opportunity for all of us pro lifers: since veganism is a growing trend, use that to our advantage when we promote pro life positions. Maybe more will come to pro life in the same way as you!
Until babies are no longer murdered in the womb I will not lose any sleep about animals dying. I’d rather personally make a whole species extinct than to let one child made in the image of God die. I will lose zero hours of sleep about animal suffering in the meantime.
Amen!
Listened to this while stacking bales for our cattle. Awesome chat!
Wow! Why are Trent’s comments so hostile.
Trent has been kind, understanding, and considerate in his debates with Alex. Same with Alex and his followers. Can’t you guys chill.
You literally are ok with Aborting kids but think killing animals is a worse ethical issue. Ya. your insane. Atheists don't have morals, just hedonistic preferences.
“We know that satan has taken over printers and we may never get them back” Trent Horn.
Question: what is the difference between _must_ and _ought_ ? Is the former a foundation for the absolute? And now I ask:
May Nat Hentoff, who we should pray for with all departed people, pray for Alex. He has a brilliant mind, though. . .like us all. . .a bit unstable.
May the Saints intercede for him, especially St. Augustine whose day was yesterday, 8/28.
A Pro Life ethic, while having a lot of religious interaction, is not solely a tenant of faith but of reason.
It is the perfect mindset and it was truly embraced by Nat, a man of virtue not exactly knowing the God who made him this side of the veil.
And may we pray for Trent, his family, and all of us to have a reason for their hope the strength and joy to share it.
Thank you @Cosmic Skeptic and @Counsel of Trent
Why should society accept any new rights? If rights are just delusions we all collectively agree to indulge in, then why should anyone agree to indulge in a new delusion that society does not already accept? The premise only makes sense if you start the clock at... right now. It doesn't explain why we abolished racial discrimination, slavery, or any number of other socially accepted evils. If the only thing backing up rights is public opinion, then the people who fought against popular evils like slavery, and the people who fight for unpopular goods, are behaving irrationally. They were trying to force society to bow to their delusions. And indeed, they had no right to do so!
If you take Alex's view to its logical conclusion, we have to conclude that the abolitionists were only justified the moment they overcame public opinion. To believe in abolition _before slavery was abolished_ was totally unjustified, since there _was not_ a socially agreed-upon right to be free from slavery. To say that such a socially-constructed right already existed, even before it was recognized, is to beg the question. The only way slaves could have had a right to freedom in the 18th century is if that right does not depend on social acceptance. But how can such a right exist in a subjectivist moral framework?
All rights are simply tenets of the social contract, according to subjectivists. Which means anything that's not on the social contract at the moment is not a right at the moment. It doesn't become a right until it's acknowledged by society. But the abolitionists didn't say "freedom should be a right." They said "freedom is a right." Their justification for respecting freedom as a right was that freedom _already existed_ as a God-given right entitled to respect. It's pretty much self-evident that a right which depends on social acceptance is no right at all. It is simply a transitory moratorium on some kind of action/behavior. If it only exists when it's being acknowledged, it's no different from any other statutory provision. Which means nobody can be held to account for not respecting it during a time when respecting it is not required by law.
If Alex is correct, then we have _no right_ to look back at Thomas Jefferson or George Washington and regard them with scorn and contempt, because their slaves had _no right_ to freedom until that freedom was widely recognized. Even worse, our neighbors have no right to expect anything from us beyond that which is already agreed upon. Rights must remain stagnant and frozen in time, since we are under no moral obligation to accept new rights.
But none of us behaves that way. From time to time, we feel _compelled_ to accept new rights. We feel obligated to accept them even many decades before widespread acceptance. To become "early adopters," so to speak. How can that be, if we are not morally obligated to respect any rights that our society does not respect? As usual, humans' strange, innate behavior perfectly illustrates the existence of absolute, objective moral truth. Even if society does not accept it, we are individually capable of seeing it, and we are collectively capable of convincing our brothers and sisters to respect it.
Your argument might be more convincing if the apostle Paul had not exhorted slaves to obey their masters. You say we are all capable of seeing objective moral truths even if they happen not to be currently in vogue, but Paul's perspective generally was to encourage kindness to slaves whilst being all but silent on the question of the institution itself, which is not challenged, let alone condemned, anywhere in the Bible. Since the Bible is believed by most Christians to be the unerring word of the divine, it is surely remarkably remiss of God not to have pronounced forthrightly and clearly against this evil. Strange that we have all had to wait for secularly minded folks during the last two centuries to confront it, rather than being able to rely on incontrovertible scriptural evidences from the outset. Strange that UN human rights declarations take more advanced positions on this subject than do the holy books of either the Jews, Christians or Muslims.
@@laurameszaros9547 hey why do you think Paul exorted slaves to obey their masters like for example because he thought is was moral or because he did not condone it ect ect and if so what evidence do you have to support your conclusion. For example I and many others belive it was because he was trying to protect the slaves from the consequences of rebellion. Also keep in mind just because God or the Bible condones some behavior or regulates laws it does not mean it was because it wasn’t bad for example when they asked Jesus if divorced was not good why did Moses allow it to wich he replied because of the men hardness of heart.
@@laurameszaros9547 the slavery question is a lot more complicated than people realize. The Bible and the Catholic Church oppose chattel slavery, which is the ownership of a person. But it's not intrinsically evil to own someone's labor, provided you're still respecting their dignity as a human being. Consider the conflict between Russia and Ukraine right now. Russia attacked without provocation and has caused an incredible amount of destruction in Ukraine. If the Ukraine army captures Russian soldiers, it's not evil to force these Russians to help rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed. The Ukrainians must treat them humanely though, and only force them to work to an extent that serves justice.
@@alfredomaldonado6614 Yes, there is definitely a discrepancy between Moses and Jesus on the subject of divorce. But as for Paul "..trying to protect slaves from the consequences of rebellion.." I find that pretty unconvincing, as you should also, if you were honest about it. Are Christians protected from the consequences of rebellion against the Romans or the traditions of the Pharisees when they attest to belief in Christ as the Messiah? Hardly. Even setting Paul aside however, nowhere does the Bible challenge or condemn the institution of slavery itself. That is pretty telling, wouldn't you say? Somewhere, somehow, God could easily have found the opportunity to make clear his opposition to the evil phenomenon of slavery by inspiring at least one of the authors of the Bible to declare as much, but nowhere in the scriptures can such a prohibition be found. I'm almost amused by the ways in which Christians try to wriggle out of dealing with this failure on God's part. They want so much to believe in their story that they are prepared to excuse God virtually anything.
@@laurameszaros9547 Here are some videos that could challenge your views and where I came up with my conclusions
1. th-cam.com/video/Twg-XJdU424/w-d-xo.html
2. th-cam.com/video/93JdjLqBQqE/w-d-xo.html
3. th-cam.com/video/DDLVxl2cesI/w-d-xo.html
4. th-cam.com/video/dRDOrapoinI/w-d-xo.html
Great discussion!
But I can't help but point out the moment when Alex said that they were recording the episode in a hotel room (to signify the noise in the background) and Trent just said "it's wonderful"!
That's Christ's joy right there!
I was vegan for 8 years and never thrived, no matter what I ate. So no, I will never agree that people eat meat just for the taste of it.
Amen. I used to be vegan too, and I couldn't agree more.
28:10 Pro Choicers not using an unreal hypothetical situation challenge (impossible)
This was a proper dialogue between opposing views.
God bless you!!
Yes. In the meantime he can bless his own equipment is which he has control over
Amen
The Devil has taken over printers hahahahah so true. Printers and usb plugs
I find Alex boring and mostly pointless. I get he is incredibly intelligent but his focus on these silly points is tired.
Must be hard for him to see lobster in Maine Lobster Festival.
@Tercio Novohispano Lol, you're everywhere in this comment section ☠️
29:50 going to the bank. The answer is save every child and don’t worry about your possession or your debt. Live by faith. Leave everything behind and follow Jesus. How is this even being debated. No matter the complexity of any “scenario” is misleading. At a fundamental level a decision must be made. Deep philosophical question are good to ponder on but they take time to unravel some questions. Keep praying contemplative prayers because if God forbid you find yourself in an unexpected moment of life and death where you must act, all you have is your spiritual instinct. No matter your choice, God will use it for good. There is plenty of room for Grace in these moments. There is plenty of room for Grace for the limitations of our understanding. Excellent and interesting debate but let’s always remember the most fundamental answers to these scenarios.
I think that as a member of the homo sapien species that our psychological preference for our own species is where we bottom out. The fact that most of us have the ability to rationalize and then justify human exceptionalism is not sufficient reason for its truth. Trent’s argument and justification for human value bottoms out at God, and mine as an atheist bottoms out at biology (psychology). However, I’m not sure how either one is not speciesism…just with differing justifications???
I’m struggling to comprehend how someone seemingly as intelligent and rational as Alex can still hold this view. There’s nothing even close to a sound basis on which to believe in the logical truth of the vegan worldview. It’s extremely flimsy at best. I can only put it down to an extreme case of “feels over reals”
I mean, veganism is rational if you believe in utilitarian ethics. You may believe in the inherent value of human life, but why? Aren’t there many other animals that are also conscious and thinking, but their lives are destroyed for the sake of a good meal?
Sure, you might not feel like animal lives are as important as human lives? But so what? Many people don’t feel as if the lives of human fetuses are important enough to inconvenience themselves with birthing them, so they just kill them and move on, you wouldn’t assert that these people were right for aborting their children based on their feelings, so what rational grounds do we have to value human lives over animal lives?
Well, Christians can rely on sacred scripture, which heavily implies the sacrosanctity of human life, and which condemns acts of murder and cruelty. They can also rely on sacred tradition and the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, and because all of this is *infallible* it means that it is guaranteed to be true, even if the precise way it is true isn’t revealed.
But Alex O’Connor can’t ground a belief in the inherent value of human life rationally, nor can he ground the justification to kill animals rationally, to him, the term “human” merely designates an animal within the homo genus, a particularly intelligent species, but there’s no reason to arbitrarily believe it is more valuable than any other species.
Therefore, people who reject the infallible decrees of Christianity don’t have any rational reason to believe in the inherent value of human life. Therefore, to justify the value of human life, they must look elsewhere.
Perhaps it is the sapience of human life that makes it valuable, the fact that humans are creative, intelligent, able to form civilizations, languages, communities, abstractions, etcetera, that makes their lives more valuable, under this view, human fetuses cannot be valuable if they don’t have a functioning mind or brain, because they’re not sapient, they might still defend the lives of third-trimester fetuses or newborn infants, on the basis that they have sapience, it’s just not very developed, and may use the example of babies learning languages from humans around them as a demonstration of the low-intelligence sapience of infants.
But maybe our killing of animals is not justified, the ending of a conscious being’s life should be a pretty big deal, but we do it for the sake of flavor, we wouldn’t kill a severely mentally disabled person for the sake of getting his allowance, even if said person’s mental disability was severe enough to put his iq in the 40s, so why should we kill animals on the basis of their lack of intelligence or sapience, especially for something as unimportant as taste. You wouldn’t kill your own pet for the sake of food (unless maybe you had to), and indeed, pet owners tend to feel sad when their pets pass away, but that implies some kind of values that the pets had, unless of course, the pets’ lives only mattered inasmuch as they impacted the owner’s life, or only mattered because the owner loved the pets, but why is ownership, which to Alex O’Connor, is a mere human concept that has no basis in the real world, but exists as a concept in our minds, why is this ownership important in determining the value of a pet’s life? What if the owner killed their own pet maliciously? Won’t most people hate that person as if they had ended a human life? And if that’s the case, why is it different for farm animals?
@Tercio Novohispano I disagree, I think he’s a rational person, if by that you mean someone who feels and expresses an interest in knowing the truth via rationality, both motivated by curiosity and, ironically, a moral sense that one should not deliberately believe in falsehoods and should instead try to be intellectually honest.
He makes rational errors, he’s often presumptuous, like when he read Numbers 31:18, which says: “but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” and immediately presumed that this was a command to keep the virgin women as sex slaves for the Israelites, when in reality, that doesn’t have to be the interpretation of the passage, he later said that he interpreted the passage that way, because (and I’m paraphrasing here, not a direct quote) “I don’t know what else a bunch of ancient Israelite men would want to do with virgin women aside from keep them as sex slaves”, now even if it, by his worldview, may seem likely that they were sex slaves, which is a point I would contest, I still think that without having certainty, it would be reckless to offer this interpretation as anything more than just a mere hypothesis, but Alex O’Connor declares it as if it were the only plausible meaning of the text.
But aside from that among other rational errors, he does have a passion for knowing the truth, and seems like someone who is willing to change their mind as long as they’re sufficiently convinced of something.
That being said, I think emotivism is a moral belief that ultimately originates in a desire to preserve morals, as every person, regardless if they wish to deny it or not, has moral convictions that they feel are objective and universally binding, while simultaneously not having the ability to believe in virtue ethics (the idea that concepts like justice, mercy, prudence, respect, etcetera, are real and are morally binding) because you simply cannot justify virtue ethics rationally, try to prove (without any infallible religious document) that we have a moral obligation to respect other people, you simply can’t, so he must resort to a more rationally justifiable moral belief system, and in this case, emotivism won out.
@Tercio Novohispano I am quite sure emotivists observe that people, including themselves, make moral judgments based on emotions.
I don't even think a conversation such as this is even helpful with someone like Alex, who does not even accept the reality of objective moral truth and goodness. That should be the starting point for ethical discussions, because otherwise, you'll just be talking in circles with him all day.
Unless he ultimately is mistaken and merely believes he is one but could change or finds the pattern matches something else ultimately.
And why show this be the starting point? And what are these are these objective moral truths and why?
@@maxmaximus2608 This is the starting point because this is where things are currently. As for why because according to natural law theory the natural law is present within each of us whether we approve of it or realize it or not. Looking at it like an engineer, information theorist esp a cryptographer, or a hacker, that is still operative even when suppressed or rejected and can be demonstrated with enough work in a way that is undeniable tp the person, since even if unseen or broken and defaced it is objectively expected to be present. As for what they are exactly, something akin to either the Noahtide Laws or the Ten Commandments but as generalized governing directives for proper moral behavior.
In short, because God wrote His Law into the hearts of humankind. In my experience this way works pretty well. Now this is abstracted somewhat, but as we do not have direct access to this, we need to use essentially rebounded signals to map onto what is below and use an interpretive layer to make more concrete sense of it.
Now how to go about it will change wildly from person to person, both on the doing and recieving ends, and varies through time and is highly situational. It is not like electronics or other such systems except that there are information structures, so this is at best analogous, but we don`t have to have a perfect understandin to attempt a given categorically-oriented method.
Ultimately though, we come to the realization that we can not fix the most important parts that are broken, because the source of the problem is much broader and deeper than an obscured understanding of natural law. Both within ourselves and within the greater system we are in, we have fallen out of our intended place, and we can not put ourselves back there without help. So even if we could perfectly map it all internally, we can not fix what is truly broken because it is squarely beyond our reach or in any way we could reach for. This is because we have fallen out of line with what our Creator intended us to be. If it is an existential decoupling like this, it can seem invisible but ever-present. If God is the self-subsistent ground of all that is as St.Thomas Aquinas says, a relational break with Him in us will be as a modal existential break in what we are vs what we are meant to be. We`ve lost the access rights to the source and everything is serverside. So only the One in charge can restore that. He is also fixing all the damage that occured downstream. We neef to accept it though, He won`t force it on us, He respects the volition He gave us. But we do best, when we follow the intended design and eventually, the network will be rebooted and anyone unauthorized and refusing cooperation, will be cut off.
@@LostArchivist Thanks for the long response:
- starting point because this is where things are currently: this is meaningless, I'm not sure "where" you are, I'm certainly not there.
- natural law is present within each of us: this is hollow church-speak as well. There is no reason in my opinion to believe in anything which is postulated under "natural law". As far as I can tell, this is an invention of the Catholic Church, nothing more. When was natural law applied to solve a scientific question?
- the Ten Commandments but as generalized governing directives for proper moral behavior: hundreds of different christian sects point to the Bible/these commandments and come up with hundreds of different moral frameworks. Even if I'd agree that there are objective moral truths, it has no utility as we have no good path to agree on what this framework is.
- because God wrote His Law into the hearts of humankind: Again, this is an assertion without any evidence and is just blank, bla... If this is correct then your god instructed me to defend a romans right to choose.
- Now how to go about it will change wildly from person to person: I thought you defend the concept of objective moral truths but here it sounds as you make the case for morals being subjective. But perhaps you see it similar to what I did describe earlier: Objective morality exists, but we can't know it...
- I have a hard time to understand what you mean in the last paragraph. I don't sign up for the "broken nature" of humans or original sin and you seem to say that goodness is unobtainable. I don't know... but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@@maxmaximus2608 This opening statement has nothing to do with you or your opinions anyway. I was speaking about Cosmicskeptic and Trent Horn, if Cosmicskeptic is an emotivist so we must begin with him (or anyone else) where he is , this is not meaningless, it is a fact of dealing with other human beings.
You provided no evidence to the contrary for your counters however either and simply stated your own assertions as a counter, you have also misread my post and assumed much based on a generic theistic stance.
Natural Law predates the Catholic Church however and conceptually draws from various ancient philosophical and legal systems, particularly the thoughts of the Ancient Greeks and the Church integrated the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions with the Old and New Testaments and those of their contemporaries. The Scholastics later synthesized this into a systematic framework that St.Thomas Aquinas utilized along with the then newly recovered works of the Ancient Greeks and those of the Muslim scholars of his day to formulate the Thomistic School that survives to his day. So while there are many frameworks, they are not all standing on equal footing, this is not even to get into using Biblical and historical analysis to compare them.
For the latter parts of my post, think like someone who is reverse engineering something and it may make more sense. And our individual subjective apparent experience and understanding of the Natural Law is not necessarily identical to the Natural law and it is this and not the Natural Law itself that I was citing when I said there was wild variance between people. This is especially expected if we are in fact various degrees of broken. Then after that is mostly computer analogy.
Either way, I was not proposing a proof of anything but a potential frame for persuasion and introspection and perhaps a rough sketch for a means to investigate for the existence of something like the Natural Law if one wished to attempt to go about it. Basically, there are certain hallmarks that would be expected from any given system if it exists, and as we humans are able clearly to communicate and have a general idea for what each other means and experiences, there must be a consistent common human mental dynamic. Taking that, we can use Information Theory and Complexity Theory to determine some properties we would expect if a common moral law existed within human beings as a whole.
How to do that is above my ken, but it should be theoretically possible, unless I missed or misunderstood anything.
Trent, I am praying for you every night on my rosary.
Very charitable discussion!
"What I mean to say is, there's a difference between something being a human or being alive, and it being a thing that has moral worth." 😬
Incidentally, I'm not super versed in Alex's thoughts, but I haven't really heard him bring up the ethical issues of large scale farming to support vegan diets. My limited exposure to ecologists opinions is that it's really not possible to grow enough crops throughout the world to make entirely vegan diets possible for the whole world, and probably not as a well-balanced diet; and not without destroying natural ecosystems. So is veganism preferable to the moral suffering of starving humans? What if there's a choice between feeding animals and humans? What about destroying all the native ecologies?
I’d love to know how atheists draw the line on what animal death is acceptable/unacceptable ? How do you quantify that in any objective way? Are insects less viable as a life form than a bird or mouse? Is it v based on intelligence? Then how would you measure that? Is it by size? I just think the atheist has no answer for this that will make coherent sense.
Nat Hentoff and Christopher Hitchens had the answer when it came to the right to life. Both were secularists, if not atheists.
@@AJKPenguin Christopher Hitchens was a mouth-piece for the soviets, hardly a poster boy for ethics. All the suffering of the central and eastern Europeans was worth it in his eyes, just so long as 'superstition' was destroyed and his people ruled.
I can't answer as an atheist, but I am a pro-life Catholic vegan. Did you mean valuable where you said viable? I don't think insects are less valuable (we need the honeybees!) than larger animals, but I am less concerned about killing them. I am more concerned about larger animals, because they have nervous systems that allow them to feel pain more acutely. I eat a plant based diet so that I'm not participating in the factory farm industry which causes enormous animal suffering. I believe I'm healthier living this way, as well, so it's win-win.
The line between farm animals and insects is admittedly arbitrary, and if a yellow jacket comes in my house, I will kill it. My husband has to go to work, and he kills bugs and sometimes small animals on road. We don't sweat it. But it's quite easy to choose to have beans in my burrito rather than beef, and I sleep better at night that I've done what I can to minimize my role in animal suffering.
I'm an atheist but not a vegan or vegetarian. I can't answer for others, but I may have at least some sense of how non-believers would view your questions. At the very least I can explain how I feel about them.
"I’d love to know how atheists draw the line on what animal death is acceptable/unacceptable? How do you quantify that in any objective way?"
I cannot draw that line. I've an impression that it has something to do with an animal's ability to suffer but I couldn't quantify that or measure it effectively so as to delineate between acceptable and unacceptable. I care about people suffering. I find that I care about animals suffering too. What I care about in this regard doesn't seem to be any more easily objectively divided by (somewhat arbitrary) species distinctions than it does by intelligence.
"I just think the atheist has no answer for this that will make coherent sense."
It's certainly a difficult thing to make sense of ...
but don't find the alternative to be any more coherent. Objectively measuring/establishing the (sacred?) value of a human life seems just as much of a challenge.
Why SHOULD we be consistent, Alex? Atheism is cringe
If you're not consistent with your morals, then you're a hypocrite meaning that you only choose to be good or bad when it benefit you or when you're discriminating against one and not the other. It's simply is never a good look to be inconsistent.
Sure keep believing in your imaginary friend in the sky
@@TrideepNagg Atheism is illogical; it assumes the laws of physics broke themselves to create themselves. If anything, you support an imaginary concept.
@@TrideepNagg if this is about who's got the wilder imagination, the atheist takes the cake.
Of course, the real question is, does the atheist still have that cake anymore once he's gone and eaten it?
“The worst part was his hypocrisy”
Glad to see people calling out Alex.
God bless you
I dont care how smart the argument. I am never giving up steak, chicken, and bacon.
For Euthanasia, I don't think his argument for "Right to Life means also Right to not live" works for Euthanasia, because Euthanasia is a systematic act of killing, not passively allowing someone to naturally die.
In some ancient cultures, the very old when near death would go on a journey into the forest, never to return. I wouldn't call such a journey suicide, in as much as the journey doesn't kill them but nature/God does.
I will pray for you!!
Final question I have, if you believe in evolution would you equate all life forms the same? If so how did we manage to be on top of the food chain? If we believe in creation (via evolution or creation in traditional views) then there is an inherent hierarchy in creation.
"If you believe in literal genesis, would you equate Adam to the dirt that shaped him?"
You can't equate things that have different qualities even if they have the same source. Evolution explains how the different qualities came about, there is no problem here.
And tell me, how did T. Rex manage to get on top of the food chain before humans existed? Easy: the top of the food chain is the spot for the praying animal that has no natural predators in its enviroment. It is something GUARANTEED to exist in any enviroment where predation exists.
I think we should be able to kill an animal for consumption or in rural areas for warmth (to survive) but it should be done in a very humane way. Animals should not have to suffer when they die. It should be as pain free as possible, and they should live free range happy lives for their whole life. Also I believe people should be grateful that the animal gave their lives so that we could eat and survive. (Give thanks to God)
Yes the church teaches that being cruel to an animal is a sin.
@@tafazzi-on-discord that’s wonderful where did you find that info 🙏🏼☺️🕊✝️🙏🏼
@@roseg1333 You can look up "catechism of the catholic church" and read from article 2416 to 2418
@@tafazzi-on-discord ok thank you very much 🙏🏼
Completely agree!!
Love these Trent you have to rebut John McArthur he has a youtube video posted 3 weeks ago that is 1 hr long called "Explaining the heresy of the Catholic Mass."...
It's weird that Alex mentioned 'taste' ,as a major reason for not being Vegan.
When Alex O'Connor was in a discussion with Matt Dillahunty ( infamous for his' Dillahunty Dodge'), about Veganism, Matt Dillahunty took issue with Alex O'Connor stating that "taste' is a major factor. Matt Dillahunty said that "taste being a major factor" is a "gross oversimplification".
29:30
Comparing saving kids and supporting factory farming is a bit odd.
Killing a cow for food is different then not saving a child lol
Amazing talk. Love to hear more.
51:55 there must be a distinction between man and animals. “Birds do not store up food…..how much more valuable you are than all the birds of the world…”
I would imagine that the birds, at any rate, disagree with that claim. I have read that the New Caledonian crow is, after homo sapiens, the most intelligent species on planet Earth. Remember Hitchcock's haunting movie "The Birds"?
What is the difference between not being able to discuss abortion because Alex is not a woman and discussing animal suffering if Alex is objectively not an animal?
I'm anti-abortion but actually agnostic on the issue of euthanasia. Tbh I wish Trent talked about it more since it's an interesting subject and I have no internal bias to believe one way or the other on it
I pray for all ortho catholic media apostolates in my nightly rosary
Can you comment on Archbishop Paglia seeming to be lukewarm to supportive of abortion?
Prayers assured.!
It’s very interesting to hear such an intelligent person say something to the effect that it’s, one, ridiculous to place moral worth on a human being at conception, as if only a stupid person would ever come to that conclusion, and, two, that the position is equally as logical as placing moral worth on a human being at birth. It’s just such a blind statement. Even a shallow analysis of this opinion disproves it. How can we equate birth, which can happen at literally any point in a pregnancy, to the actual genesis of that independent human organism? Conception is the biological beginning of a human being. Everything else is subjective. Once you attempt to attribute any other sort of qualification for “membership” in humanity, you will inevitably devolve into genocide. Here we are in America 63 million dead babies later.
35:21 the answer is sacrifice yourself. If that is not an option, do not kill if you are pressured by evil forces. End times prophecy is relevant here even if it only a personal experience rather then the Global context we find in scripture.
Missing the video edition.
Why don't we change the rule of nature and start eating the preying animals rather non-preying animals like cow or deer
.
Because they typically don't taste as good.
Alex is getting lots of hate here, but his arguments are pretty sound to me. I'd say I agree with both people maybe 90%.
If the use of animal products can be boiled down to people seeking taste pleasure, can't the cause of abortion be boiled down to people seeking sexual pleasure?
I liked this conversation more that the one you guys did on Cameron’s channel, simply because the topic was simple and easier to track. The one on Cameron’s channel however, apologies in advance Trent, just some honest critique, I thought u did somewhat poorly. Of course i still find both of you guys conversation good, but there was a couple of times where I felt like you dodged the question ( for example when Alex was making an Internal Critique by saying “what if you see a man beat their kid harshly on the side of the road, would you intervene, and if u do, how can u say that all evil God will eventually bring greater good” or something like that, to which Trent started to ask Alex about his moral standards leaving the question to dust). But nonetheless, I could still just be misreading the debate.
I’ll keep you in my prayers too Trent, the whole technology not working thing seems convincing that the devil is plotting something! Plus u deserve it, after all, your ministry is nothing but greatness, always appreciate when you give us all some resources to be able to think critically! God bless u man
I'd answer that question with: it's fine either if you intervene or if you don't. You are not legally nor morally required to stop a parent beating their child. You would however be required to aim towards reducing the instances of these events, maybe by telling the parent it is wrong to beat their kid, or as God did it, by giving a moral compass to all men, and later prophets and Scripture.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Thanks for the reply! Though your answer is rather different than mine but in some ways can be similar.
Personally I’d rather say that to who’s authority can we say that the greater good is not us? In other words, I believe if we are put in such position, God may be using us to bring the greater good. I don’t want to restrict God’s will to just be him intervening, rather Id liked it when we say God gives us a choice by allowing such a situation to occur in front of us, whether we intervene or not. I believe God will use us sometimes and not. In the end it’s in God’s hand. Just my opinion though, I don’t know of any objection to my way of thinking since I’m not so rational, maybe you could show some holes? Nonetheless I appreciate your comment!
Human is a “kind” in a species. This means all the way back evolutionary we are here, as evolved. Trying to equate hominid of the past to todays human(kind) is illogical. It’s artificially creating a problem with no solution like how to make a square circle. These tactics draws us in to debate that are superficial. Substantive discussion should be based on real problems and not created problems.
It is not an illogical problem like "how to make a square a circle", it raises the question of whether zygotes that genetically are guaranteed to grow up as heavily mentally impaired are humans.
I found it a useful question, it made it seem like another huge problem for atheistic moral objectivism, which is always a good thing since most people are moral objectivists yet some hold to the idea of atheism, provably incoherently.
Alex and Hitch are similar. If you're not careful, they sound like they make sense.
I’m all for being vegan… I just have to figure it out financially and practically. And I think if you are opposed to potential animal suffering you should really consider potential human suffering in abortion. I do get that early stage abortive measures may not hurt the life in the womb at whatever early stage.
We never got the controntation, the drama of addressing God directing Saint Peter to kill and eat. We know killing and eating animals isn't evil from same source that informs us why unnecessary killing and/or eating humans is always evil.
I don’t think Trent’s example of slavery of the student is slavery since a mutual transaction is made. The one person pays the debt and in turn the student works for them (defined as slavery but imo it is labour).
It would be gruesome to eat a living animal. Eating dead animals reduces suffering. 🙄😳😁😂
The real question is:
Why is it wrong to want to eat animals?
Here is a scenario. What about aboriginal people who rely on meat for the protein they need to live a nomadic lifestyle or far north. Are fish and mammals equal?
Feed the algorithm
This baby cow and baby make a good friend. Irony is that the cow will be on baby's plate as food one day
.
how is that ironic? Humans are farmers they naturally nurture life forms they intend to eat.
38:12 “ought not” Paul said all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.
Paul told slaves to obey their masters. I wouldn't regard him as a reliable source.
@@laurameszaros9547 You continue to spam every comment, nobody cares about your petty temper tantrum. Get over yourself, atheist.
@@laurameszaros9547 he is a reliable source. If you are in a country where slavery is legal, that does not make you allowed to break the law by disobaying your owner. Breaking the law is only permissable when the law is compelling you to sin.
Duty to life, very good thing there.
The analogy of freedom and right to live or the right to take it. But this would be asking someone to break the commandment to not kill. The person who wants to die has the right to suicide, but I really think it’s a terrible decision for someone to do. I’m a suicide attempt survivor. When I woke up from life support I was handcuffed to the bed. I’m happy I was because it allowed me time to process the pain I’ve caused to my family. Things can always improve. We don’t know the future in God’s plan for us. 6 years later I’m in ministry for those who suffered as I did. God is not done with us until he takes your life to be with Him.
>The person who wants to die has the right to suicide
false
@@tafazzi-on-discord i didn’t say it is right. the point is no matter how much someone wants to die, you can not ask a christian to do it. just like you can’t ask a priest to marry same sex. They have that right from a worldly view, it’s just not Christian.
@@JT.Pilgrim I say that a "right" is an action that the State guarantees no other citizen will stop you from doing. Presently there is no right to suicide: if you walk in someone hanging themselves as a citizen you are allowed to save that person's life.
If you meant a "moral" right, that depends who you ask. Most constitutions in the world do not recognize such right, meaning it is just something that is not there.
@@tafazzi-on-discord regardless of any government “laws” there are no specific forces at play to stop someone from acting in any manner they choose. That right is free will. It’s inalienable. Man creates laws, some are based in moral truth according to their religion or absence of it. St. Paul said everything is permissible, but not all things are beneficial. From a moral standpoint one has to choose what is their constitution. Now that’s the real question.
If you grant evolution, can't the moral value of a species evolve with the evolution of the species? Thus you wouldn't need to draw a line and you can account for placing a higher value on a domesticated species?
Evolution being real does not allow you to redefine morality from the ground up. If I see a cow I'd hesitate before killing it more than if I saw a deer only because that cow is probably owned by someone and I would not want to break someone's possession.
10:49 Your talking about kosher slaughter method isn't that God way of slaughtering animals yes /no?
Trying to look taller than Alex in this backdrop are we?? xD
Most atheist vegans don’t realize that before the fall, God’s design and creation in the garden of Eden was vegan. And in the end when He makes everything new again, it will be a vegan design, not to mention perfect justice, no more killing, no more pain, perfect peace, perfect love, perfect civilization, forever. They desire all the good that God gives, but without Him, who is the only giver of all these good things.
Amen! This dude rejects God because God allows deer to fall down in the woods and get hurt, meanwhile he's casting himself out of what will literally be a vegan utopia!
The end everyone will be vegetarians not vegan
Maybe you should call a priest to your equipment before you interview I am serious
Trent, maybe use ants as an example. Ants have been shown to have a concept of self.
Deuteronomy 12:15
“However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns...
are animals and insects and plants made in the image of God?
The horrific ways some of these animals are killed is due to the problem of evil brought about by original sin.
“Every single human being, no matter how much the image of God is marred by sin, or illness, or weakness, or age, or any other disability, still has the status of being in Gods image and therefore must be treated with the dignity and respect that is due to Gods image bearer” systematic theology p450
Alex doesnt realize how much animal death and suffering went into producing every carrot and every tomato and every soy bean he consumes.
The reality is that he only cares about the animals he personally finds relatable and cute (basically just mammals and other bigger animals).
He never seems to realize how many rabbits, squirrels, snakes, snails, ants etc. *NEED* to be exterminated every year in a brutal chemical war just so he can have some soy milk with his coffee. His hypocrisy is beyond belief.
That animal suffering will still need to be made in order to make the food your steak will eat, 🆔 iot
Alex is a good example how vegans don't think and are just running on their dogma.
When he was talking about factory farming he used an example of paying for torturing a dog. Vegans think that if you buy a product, you are "paying for" whatever someone uses their (previously yours) money for.
But that is bonkers. I pay what I want to obtain. I want to obtain meat, so I pay for it and now it's mine. Someone else used that money to slaughter an animal, which means that THEY paid for that, not me.
Secondly....if I supposedly pay for an animal to be slaughtered and meat produced out of it, does that mean that I own that meat? How can someone else own that product when I supposedly paid for that? I obviously wouldn't own it, because it is not me who paid for it.
Studying philosophy is worthless if you can't use critical thinking.
So do you think there’s a meaningful moral distinction between buying a piece of meat at a supermarket, and picking out a specific live lobster (or lamb at a local farm) to be slaughtered and butchered for you specifically?
@@alicianpig Yes.
Kinad feels like his poit is the truth of veganism is written on our hearts lol
Your heart is actually in a omnivorous body
35:26 "Even" Kant would bit a deontic bullet. Isn't he like the main deontic bullet biter.
Alex always, always, always bends away from having to argue that there is a higher moral standard than humans are able to completely reason with... that is because logically that implies à higher being... and eventually one is obligated to recognize that there is a God, requiring one to choose God or renounce God... ans he hope in the end to please émotive ignorance. I feel so very sorry for anyone who stays stuck on this self built throne...it is SO much more work to stay on that throne in your thinking, wearisome, tiresome! But I recognize that God allows for us to choose whether or not to love Him. So Alex as well as anyone, can choose to be like this, instead of free... And for that reason, I can surrender my sceptism to Him completely, because of the cross, His total worthiness. :)
HOW IGNORANT FOR ATHEIST TO ARRIVE TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS.
Atheist is always deluded with their own mind
If it bleeds we can kill it.
So no lettuce?
Can I kill my bully
Are we just going to pretend Trent didn't say "MYZE-Nomer"?
I wonder how many vegans we had living on the frontier in the 18th and 19th century...