And this is where Kenny has lingered for so long. Kenny is saying that objective morality is dependent on people agreeing. We've had this debate before, although i seem to remember him denying this. But, he says here that if morality were objectively grounded then everyone would obviously see how wrong this animal treatment is. What is implied in this example is that this animal cruelty is REALLY wrong. You can't make that argument. You can't adhere to subjective morality and say, if OM existed then everyone would agree that __________ is wrong. Why? Because it already assumes that there is an objective standard by which everyone should adhere to. It must smuggle in OM to try and undermine it.Kenny wrote:I said rape is easy because everybody agrees on that issue. I think Proinsias made an excellent point about the treatment of animals.Kurieuo wrote:Rape is easy?Have you raped someone Kenny...
The fact that animals raised for food will live an entire life of torture up to the point of slaughter. We have chickens so full of drugs and so bloated they can’t even walk, and if they could the cages are so small and cramped there isn’t any room to walk anyway. Is this moral?
But this type of treatment is the only way we can get those huge 5-6 oz chicken breasts we’ve become accustomed to instead of the 4 oz breast of a natural chicken; and if we had less meat the 1 out of 6 Americans who struggle with hunger will be 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 3
But then we throw away over half of the food produced in this USA, if we wasted less we could treat animals humanely and still have enough for everyone to eat..
But throwing food away is the result of quality control in the meat packing industry; we don’t wanna go back to the times of the 1930’s when everyone was getting sick do we?
And that’s just chickens; what about cows? Ever see a ranch hand saw the horns off a long horned bull? Is that moral?
If morality were objective, these type of questions would be as obvious as 1+1=2. The fact that some people will say yes while others will say no, is obvious to me that morality is subjective.
Ken
But, Kenny says not everyone has a problem with it, therefore morality isn't objectively grounded. In doing so, Kenny has made a claim. If morality is objective then it would be as obvious as 1+1=2. However, he has yet to offer any proof to support that claim. It is simply........wait for it........his opinion. I would agree, objective moral truth SHOULD be obvious. Whether it is, is another story. If Kenny is right, then how can we even find grounds on which to speculate whether OM should be obvious? And, if Kenny is right, then we would also be perfect moral creatures.
Now, the difference is that one who adheres OM can explain why agreement is not as obvious as it ought to be. It isn't that right and wrong aren't obvious. It is a perception problem. If i am driving my car, I can look at the gauge and determine whether I need fuel. Unless, of course, the gauge is broken. If so, how much fuel I have in my tank is still an objective fact, but I am impaired from knowing how much fuel is in my tank. Following Kenny's logic, the fuel in the tank is not an objective fact. One person might be convinced it's full, the other, empty. It's entirely subjective. But, Kenny's example totally undermines this. To take this further, what if everyone agreed that the tank was full because the gauge said it was full? Everyone sees how obvious it is that the tank is full. See, i can demonstrate it is full, just look at the gauge. Yes, our moral gauge ought to reflect what is true. Kenny has not shown how his claim is correct. It's just a bald assertion.
I'll eat my shoe if Kenny agrees with any of this.
Kenny, apparently, thinks this animal treatment is wrong, and i think it's safe to say that he thinks that others should agree with him. If he is going to be consistent then there should be NO reason for anyone to agree with him, and no reason to convince anyone to agree with him. (which he is trying to do, btw) In fact, he should be just as willing to change his opinion on the matter. But he won't. Why not? Because he believes it really, really is wrong. Objectively wrong.
There is little question that we are moral agents. But, we are flawed moral agents. I would venture that any normal, rational person who witnessed the things Kenny describes would be appalled if not repulsed.
Kenny seems to have snared himself on the rape issue. He says rape is wrong because he can demonstrate it is wrong. If so, then OM exist and Kenny's position is destroyed. However, how is Kenny going to demonstrate it is wrong? Subjective opinions and preferences? Collective subjective opinions? Subjective laws? Here is the rub. If everyone agrees that rape is wrong, does that make OM exist? Then, let's say, some people decide differently that rape is good and right. Does that change whether that is the case?
Now Kenny seems interested in demonstrating that this animal treatment is objectively wrong. Totally confusing. I would even say, perhaps everyone would be RIGHT to adopt Kenny's position on animal cruelty.
