Deontology strictly dictates that it is a moral wrong to intentionally use a sentient being purely as a means to an end. When you buy meat, you are financing the intentional slaughter of an innocent being for your sensory pleasure. Crop deaths, on the other hand, are an unintended, incidental byproduct of food production. In a duty-based framework, the moral gulf between an accidental byproduct (harvest deaths) and a deliberate, systematic execution (slaughter) is absolute. By participating in intentional slaughter, you are violating a core deontological principle.
You claim that trying to include animals in deontology is bullshit because they aren't rational human agents. But human infants, individuals with severe cognitive disabilities, and patients in advanced dementia also lack traditional rational moral agency. Yet, as a deontologist, you would agree it is a horrific violation of duty to slaughter and eat them.
If you protect non-rational humans under your framework but exclude animals who possess the exact same capacity to suffer, feel pain, and experience life, your boundary isn't rational agency'l at all. It is just arbitrary speciesism.
You seem to be a deontologist who draws a rigid moral boundary at the edge of the human species.
You believe that because animals lack human-level rational agency, we owe them no direct moral duties. Is that correct?
Ok so if you are arguing for Deontology, a core pillar of Deontology (Kantian ethics) is that you must never treat a being with inherent value purely as a means to an end.
By asserting that animals don't belong in this framework, you are arguing that because animals lack human-level rational agency, they have zero inherent value and can be treated strictly as commodities, tools, or resources for human pleasure.
You aren't protecting the integrity of Deontology; you are just drawing an arbitrary line at the human species boundary so you can enjoy eating meat without violating your personal rules.
Declaring "I’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning doesn’t apply to me" is exactly like a thief saying, "I don't subscribe to the concept of property rights, so your ethical reasoning about stealing doesn't apply to my actions."
Moral frameworks evaluate the objective reality of actions and their victims. Your arguments have collapsed into "I didn't do it" and "the rules don't apply to me" which is either low effort trolling or low effort reasoning.
I didn’t say it was a bad analogy; I said you intentionally missed the point of it because you cannot defend your own logic. Pretending I 'admitted' something I didn't is just your latest attempt to keep us talking about anything other than your choice to fund animal slaughter.
I used those analogies as reductio ad absurdum to show that your stated logic leads to absurd conclusions. I didn't raise them to debate medical ethics; I raised them to demonstrate that if we held people responsible for any foreseen probability of harm, society would be impossible.
The fact that you are hyper-focusing on the mechanics of a doctor's consent rather than addressing why your own logic makes parents 'murderers' and drivers 'killers' proves that you are incapable of defending your actual position.
Whether or not a doctor obtains consent is entirely irrelevant to whether it is ethical to kill a sentient being for sensory pleasure. You are creating a false analogy because you can no longer defend your position on the original topic.
By claiming "I’m not a consequentialist" as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed, you aren't winning an intellectual debate; you are admitting that you have no consistent ethical standard. You are essentially saying, "I don’t have a moral framework that governs my choices; I have a list of convenient excuses."
If you aren't a Consequentialist, and your arguments against Deontology have failed, what is your moral framework? It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.
You are repeating a standard, undergraduate-level critique of consequentialism as if it were a unique insight that invalidates the reality of animal agriculture. It doesn’t.
If you haven’t moved your position despite the counter-arguments regarding intent, supply chain dynamics, and trophic levels, then we have reached a permanent impasse.
A debate where one side refuses to engage with the logical implications of their position is no longer a debate; it is simply a monologue. I have provided the necessary distinctions regarding the intentionality of slaughter versus the incidental nature of harvest deaths.
Your refusal to address the primary-cause responsibility is not a logical stance, it is a choice to remain static.
Since you are not willing to update your position based on the logic presented, there is no further value in this conversation.
The car analogy was about the distinction between intentional killing and unintended risk. You are now trying to make this about the statistical frequency of death to avoid the moral reality of your choices.
But if you want to use 'crop deaths' as your yardstick, you are concerned about animals killed during harvest, however, livestock consume vastly more grain and soy than humans do. Every time you eat a burger, you are demanding the harvest of more crops than if you had simply eaten the plants yourself. If you are worried about the 'non-zero' number of animal deaths during harvest, then by eating meat, you are directly increasing that number.
I have never argued that all second or third-order effects impose moral responsibility. I have argued that directly funding a service that has the killing of a sentient being as its primary purpose creates moral responsibility.
A parent giving birth knows their child will die, but the death is not the purpose of the act, nor is it the service they are paying for. A person buying meat is paying a corporation specifically to ensure an animal is killed. You are paying for the service of slaughter.
Having a child is a biological reality; it is not a market transaction. A grocery store purchase is a direct, bilateral contract. You give money; they give you a product that required a killing. You are the direct, primary financier of that specific act.
You haven't been arguing against second-order effects; you have been dodging the fact that your purchase is a first-order effect. You are the reason the animal was slaughtered. If you weren't there to pay for it, the slaughterhouse would have no reason to exist.
This debate has become a circular exercise where you redefine terms whenever you are backed into a corner.
You were provided with the fundamental mechanics of supply chain logistics, and you chose to ignore them. There is a vast difference between "a claim made without evidence" and a claim you simply refuse to accept because it challenges your comfort.
Philosoraptor evolved
54.4°C was recorded in Death Valley (Aug 16, 2020 and Jul 9, 2021).
Kuwait (2016) was slightly lower at 53.9°C.
Tirat Zvi, Mandatory Palestine (1942) is disputed.
Tbh a lot of the records set back then are questionable.
"We're the hottest country in the world right now."
Should've bought the 'attached' window upgrade.
Waking up to 35 messages from you this morning is hilarious, especially followed by "I don't want any responses."
I’ll gladly take you up on that. This thread speaks for itself anyway. Have a nice life doing whatever it is you're trying to achieve here.
Even within Deontology:
Deontology strictly dictates that it is a moral wrong to intentionally use a sentient being purely as a means to an end. When you buy meat, you are financing the intentional slaughter of an innocent being for your sensory pleasure. Crop deaths, on the other hand, are an unintended, incidental byproduct of food production. In a duty-based framework, the moral gulf between an accidental byproduct (harvest deaths) and a deliberate, systematic execution (slaughter) is absolute. By participating in intentional slaughter, you are violating a core deontological principle.
You claim that trying to include animals in deontology is bullshit because they aren't rational human agents. But human infants, individuals with severe cognitive disabilities, and patients in advanced dementia also lack traditional rational moral agency. Yet, as a deontologist, you would agree it is a horrific violation of duty to slaughter and eat them.
If you protect non-rational humans under your framework but exclude animals who possess the exact same capacity to suffer, feel pain, and experience life, your boundary isn't rational agency'l at all. It is just arbitrary speciesism.
You seem to be a deontologist who draws a rigid moral boundary at the edge of the human species. You believe that because animals lack human-level rational agency, we owe them no direct moral duties. Is that correct?
Ok so if you are arguing for Deontology, a core pillar of Deontology (Kantian ethics) is that you must never treat a being with inherent value purely as a means to an end.
By asserting that animals don't belong in this framework, you are arguing that because animals lack human-level rational agency, they have zero inherent value and can be treated strictly as commodities, tools, or resources for human pleasure.
You aren't protecting the integrity of Deontology; you are just drawing an arbitrary line at the human species boundary so you can enjoy eating meat without violating your personal rules.
Declaring "I’m not a consequentialist, so consequentialist reasoning doesn’t apply to me" is exactly like a thief saying, "I don't subscribe to the concept of property rights, so your ethical reasoning about stealing doesn't apply to my actions."
Moral frameworks evaluate the objective reality of actions and their victims. Your arguments have collapsed into "I didn't do it" and "the rules don't apply to me" which is either low effort trolling or low effort reasoning.
I didn’t say it was a bad analogy; I said you intentionally missed the point of it because you cannot defend your own logic. Pretending I 'admitted' something I didn't is just your latest attempt to keep us talking about anything other than your choice to fund animal slaughter.
I used those analogies as reductio ad absurdum to show that your stated logic leads to absurd conclusions. I didn't raise them to debate medical ethics; I raised them to demonstrate that if we held people responsible for any foreseen probability of harm, society would be impossible.
The fact that you are hyper-focusing on the mechanics of a doctor's consent rather than addressing why your own logic makes parents 'murderers' and drivers 'killers' proves that you are incapable of defending your actual position.
Whether or not a doctor obtains consent is entirely irrelevant to whether it is ethical to kill a sentient being for sensory pleasure. You are creating a false analogy because you can no longer defend your position on the original topic.
By claiming "I’m not a consequentialist" as a defense for paying to have a sentient being killed, you aren't winning an intellectual debate; you are admitting that you have no consistent ethical standard. You are essentially saying, "I don’t have a moral framework that governs my choices; I have a list of convenient excuses."
If you aren't a Consequentialist, and your arguments against Deontology have failed, what is your moral framework? It appears to be moral relativism where the rules change whenever you need them to so that your lifestyle remains unassailable.
You are repeating a standard, undergraduate-level critique of consequentialism as if it were a unique insight that invalidates the reality of animal agriculture. It doesn’t.
If you haven’t moved your position despite the counter-arguments regarding intent, supply chain dynamics, and trophic levels, then we have reached a permanent impasse.
A debate where one side refuses to engage with the logical implications of their position is no longer a debate; it is simply a monologue. I have provided the necessary distinctions regarding the intentionality of slaughter versus the incidental nature of harvest deaths.
Your refusal to address the primary-cause responsibility is not a logical stance, it is a choice to remain static.
Since you are not willing to update your position based on the logic presented, there is no further value in this conversation.
The car analogy was about the distinction between intentional killing and unintended risk. You are now trying to make this about the statistical frequency of death to avoid the moral reality of your choices.
But if you want to use 'crop deaths' as your yardstick, you are concerned about animals killed during harvest, however, livestock consume vastly more grain and soy than humans do. Every time you eat a burger, you are demanding the harvest of more crops than if you had simply eaten the plants yourself. If you are worried about the 'non-zero' number of animal deaths during harvest, then by eating meat, you are directly increasing that number.
I have never argued that all second or third-order effects impose moral responsibility. I have argued that directly funding a service that has the killing of a sentient being as its primary purpose creates moral responsibility.
A parent giving birth knows their child will die, but the death is not the purpose of the act, nor is it the service they are paying for. A person buying meat is paying a corporation specifically to ensure an animal is killed. You are paying for the service of slaughter.
Having a child is a biological reality; it is not a market transaction. A grocery store purchase is a direct, bilateral contract. You give money; they give you a product that required a killing. You are the direct, primary financier of that specific act.
You haven't been arguing against second-order effects; you have been dodging the fact that your purchase is a first-order effect. You are the reason the animal was slaughtered. If you weren't there to pay for it, the slaughterhouse would have no reason to exist.
This debate has become a circular exercise where you redefine terms whenever you are backed into a corner.
You cannot separate the two because economics is the mechanism through which your ethical choices manifest in the real world.
You were provided with the fundamental mechanics of supply chain logistics, and you chose to ignore them. There is a vast difference between "a claim made without evidence" and a claim you simply refuse to accept because it challenges your comfort.