"Results
Empathy assessment
The Empathy quotient (EQ) score was significantly different between groups (p = 0.002). At post-hoc analysis, the EQ score was significantly higher in vegetarians in comparison with omnivore subjects (mean EQ score = 49.5, SD = 8.9 in vegetarians vs. 38.8, SD = 8.1 in omnivore; p = 0.001), and in vegans (mean EQ score = 44.6, SD = 9.8) in comparison with omnivore subjects (p = 0.04) (Figure 1). The difference between vegans and vegetarians was not statistically significant."
There is scientific evidence to support vegetarians and vegans are more emphatic than omnivores.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/
"There is nothing immoral or even amoral about consuming dairy cow milk." slapshot
So, its moral to endorse a business that enslaves other sentient beings for profit? The conflict of interest alone between animal welfare and profit makes it immoral. Take into account many cows are factory farmed, and the only conclusion that can be made is that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral.
How about soy milk?
As for being available in third world countries, what proof do you have of that? 1940-50 is not the same as 2016. Oats have adequate protein and would have been a cheap substitute for milk in the 1940-50s. Humans only need 10% protein from calories.
"Adults in the U.S. are encouraged to get 10% to 35% of their day's calories from protein foods. That's about 46 grams of protein for women, and 56 grams of protein for men."
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/
http://www.webmd.com/diet/
Thinking morals are subjective in the way you present means person A could think crime x was moral and person B immoral. Even if crime x was an atrocity. That would result in an ineffective society.
As for an objective moral authority, I don't think one is needed for objective morals. Humans by their very nature are bias, yet we can perform very objective tasks like mathematics. Therefore, any ordinary human can be a source of objective morality.
I have to admit you made me think sceathers.
Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral.
Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma.
Outline
I. Intro
II. Animal ethics
III. Health
IV. Environment
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources
I. Intro
We shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable.
II. Animal ethics
"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare." [0]
Animals on so called "humane" farms don't fare much better. [1][2]
"Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards." [3]
Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.
III. Health
Milk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins.
"These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. " [4]
" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. " [5]
"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population." [6]
As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk.
"These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates." [7]
Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes.
“Total protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. “ [8]
“"
Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found.
Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ."” [9]
“The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. “ [10]
Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.
Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards.
IV. Environment
Inherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.
VI. Sources
0. http://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare
2. http://humanemyth.org/happycows.htm
4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/4/
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/
8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
9. http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/
10. http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/
No way!
Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral.
Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma.
Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral.
Outline
I. Intro
II. Animal ethics
III. Health
IV. Environment
V. Conclusion
VI. Sources
I. Intro
We shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable.
II. Animal ethics
"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare." [0]
Animals on so called "humane" farms don't fare much better. [1][2]
"Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards." [3]
Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.
III. Health
Milk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins.
"These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. " [4]
" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. " [5]
"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population." [6]
As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk.
"These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates." [7]
Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes.
“Total protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. “ [8]
“"
Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found.
Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ."” [9]
“The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. “ [10]
Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.
Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards.
IV. Environment
Inherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]
V. Conclusion
In conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.
VI. Sources
0. http://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/farm-animal-welfare
2. http://humanemyth.org/happycows.htm
4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/4/
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/
8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
9. http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/
10. http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/
"Animals are not connected in this way and don't have the seem ability to discriminate between right and wrong." Shaash
Agreed, animals do not seem capable of following human morals and ethics.
" If we don't test it on animals, we will have to test it on humans. And if we test it on humans, someone may die. "
True, but why not test on willing volunteers, criminals, the elderly, the mentally handicapped? Also, some tests are on animals are performed to test cosmetic products and other luxuries. Not only that but some of these tests could be performed without animals nor humans.
"Victoria’s Secret was once on PETA’s list of companies that proudly did not test on animals, but it seems the company has reneged on its promise. Companies in China pay for cruel testing tactics, such as dripping harsh chemicals onto the eyes and skin of animals to see how they react. Despite the fact that scientific breakthroughs have led to other alternatives to testing on animals, Chinese officials still refuse to incorporate these studies into their requirements." forcechange
"A human life is worth more to me than an animal life because I am a human."
So based solely on that animals are a different species than you, humans are supreme?
"These animals have less attachment and do not grieve for one another after death."
Some animals grieve for a dead relative. Elephants for example.
"However, research and observation has proven that elephants are indeed capable of many complex functions of thought and feeling. There have been many observations of elephants grieving. In Joyce Poole's Coming of Age with Elephants, a situation is described where a mother elephant is seen grieving over her stillborn baby for a few days. This mother physical stature was observed as slumped, appeared to be crying, while trying to revive her baby. " elephant
"Their lives are less meaningful than a human's." Shaash
How so?
There are more factors than just volume of sugar. Honey is more sticky than most sugars. The longer the sugar is on the teeth, the more tooth decay.
I would like to see you back up the claim that coffee is a super food. Coffee is a class 2B carcinogen.
"Cell phones are as carcinogenic as coffee"
"When I realized that the reports suggested that RF-energy from cell phones was not considered any more carcinogenic than coffee, as both are now in the company of other class 2B carcinogens"
Coffee also irritates the stomach.
""We found out there’s no single, key irritant," Somoza says in a news release. "It is a mixture of compounds that seem to cause the irritant effect of coffee.""
"I stand by my honey = SuperFood claim. Proof is in the pudding, amigo. I have used it religiously as a sweetener for 20 years and at 34 am in better condition than most guys a decade younger. I also have not had a cavity in over ten years." Slapshot
Anecdotal evidence, everyone has heard the story of a grand parent who smoked like a chimney and lived well into his or her 90s. Yet, there is copious amount of scientific evidence that smoking dramatically increases cancer risk.
Lol, Jace I read through all the links. I didn't respond line by line, but I did take some broad strokes against them. Just because you claim one of your links can discredit my claims, doesn't make it true.
Your persistence made me think that I missed something. I checked back, and my first guess was correct.
Its becoming increasingly clear you have almost no knowledge on the subject of veganism. I have learned a lot about entomophagy, and I've also learned enough about the eating of insects to know its limitations.
If all anyone cared about was the environment entomophagy makes sense. Yet, if the only concern was the environment, beef would be the first product to be phased out. People are emotionally attached to their food.
The position that you advocate for seem to be one where insects are added to the diet. This is more feasible for sure in the sense that it is easier for a human to add a new item to the menu than subtract. Yet, if people are eating grasshoppers next to a hamburger, the effect would be minimal.
Since people already eat lettuce, potatoes, and other vegan dishes. It makes more sense to encourage people to eat more of the healthier and environmentally friendly choices they are already eating.
I will now go line by line and tell you why your sole link on nutrition is inadequate to disprove my claims.
"Surveys of vegetarian populations indicate that vegetarians, particularly vegans, are at an increased risk for dietary deficiencies of protein, vitamin B-12 and vitamin D (10,17,18)."
This sounds true. Yet, its common knowledge that vegetarians and vegans are in the minority. That many are ethical vegetarians/vegans who don't know that much about nutrition.
Now look at the link 17. Vitamin D in the winter. In other words the vegans didn't go outdoors enough to receive enough sunlight and vitamin D in the winter.
"At northern latitudes, dietary intake of vitamin D in vegans was insufficient to maintain S-25(OH)D and S-iPTH concentrations within normal ranges in the winter, which seems to have negative effects on bone mineral density in the long run."
Now link 10 "Protein, saturated fat and vitamin D intake were significantly lower in the vegetarians, particularly in the vegans." [10]
This doesn't mean that they were undernourished. If the omnivores had too much of each, then the vegans would be in the normal range.
Now B12 is a problem "The vegans all had B12 intakes below the RNI; and 35% of the long-term vegetarians and vegans had serum vitamin B12 concentrations below the reference range."
This is why B12 supplements make sense. Also in the same article, the vegans had higher fiber intakes. Fiber is known for its health benefits.
Now link 18, again with B12.
" however the plasma vitamin B12 concentration decreased progressively from the high-meat-eating group to vegans (P<0.05). An inverse trend was observed with plasma homocysteine concentration, with vegans showing the highest levels and high meat eaters the lowest (P<0.05)." [18]
I could go through every link that your sole links references, but instead I will jump to the conclusion.
"In conclusion, we have designed a food guide pyramid specifically addressing the nutrient inadequacies and reduced mineral bioavailability of lactovegetarian and vegan diets. Three new food groups, green leafy vegetables, dried fruit, and nuts and seeds, have been added to the traditional food groups, increasing the protein, calcium, iron, and zinc contents of the meal plans by 15–20%." [1]
In other words Jace your link supports my claim. It proves everything I've been stating. That there are vegans who eat bad diets and are deficient. Yet, its entirely possible to a healthy vegan diet. Thanks for the link btw.
"But that is not what I am saying. Animals are life too. They can not be mistreated." Shaash
Sounds like you are agreeing with me. By conceding this point, you are effectively stating that animals should at least some rights. For, example the right against needless suffering.
"However, humans are more intelligent than them and have to make sure that what people do does not affect animals." Shaash
You seem to be arguing for my side. By giving animals certain protection, like endangered species being protected under the law, you are making an argument that animals are only slightly inferior to humans as opposed to humans being supreme.
Nevertheless, you are still making an argument that animals are inferior, which goes against my side of the debate, that humans and animals are equal.
Humans maybe intelligent, but they often lack kindness and mercy. Twice as much brain but half a serving of heart. Humans' intellect is clearly demonstrated by rockets, satellites, computers, genetic engineering an so forth.
Yet, humans seem to lack compassion. Demonstrated by all the wars, factory farms, animal testing, holocausts, and so forth. I present that intelligence alone does not make humans supreme.
"The discovery and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices for people and animals is a long and complex process with a number of stages, many of which involve animal experiments. National and international regulations currently require that new medicines are tested on animals before being licensed for use. Around 5 million animals including mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs and primates are used across the EU for this purpose each year."
"Also, remember. I'm vegetarian and can argue both sides. I am not as extreme as you think" Shaash
That's part of the reason I'm attacking your argument and not you directly.
I finally read the entire debate back and forth between Jace and I. Its evident that Jace is intelligent, but lacks knowledge and experience on the subject.
My first reaction was correct. Jace has provided no real counter-argument. This is easy to miss at first because of all the advanced words that are used. In fact, Jace only links to one article about nutrition and vegans. The other two links were broken.
After pouring over the material its evident that not all vegan diets are created equal. Suffice to say, a healthy vegan diet can be achieved. There is plenty of evidence of this all over the internet. Both scienfic and anecdotal.
As for eating just a little bit of meat. This doesn't make sense due to temptation and humans. That's why supplements are better. Think of somebody trying to resist a pie. The person decides to take one slice and ends up eating the whole pie.
For more information on a vegan diet watch these films.
The link mostly talks about the anti-bacterial properties of honey.
"Like most sugary foods, honey can promote tooth decay."
"The real life bear who inspired Winnie the Pooh suffered tooth decay partly because ‘Christopher Robin’ fed him so much honey, it has emerged. "
http://www.livestrong.com/article/476569-does-honey-promote-tooth-decay/
So, basically your stating might makes right. That humans are more powerful than animals, which makes them supreme, and therefore humans can use animals in any way they please?
I reject your notion of what appears to be might makes right. If that's what you believe, then adult men should also be able to do use women and children like tools. Woman and children need to be respected.
Sentience is a term relatively new to me. I'm pushing the envelope trying to understand the term myself. Yet, that's the point of a debate site, to challenge oneself and others, push to the furthest extreme that your mind can handle.
To understand sentience, a person must first understand stimulus and response. To know the minimal level of intellect a living organism needs to achieve stimulus response.
Anyways, its pretty obvious by now I'm just repeating other people's words and I have no clue what I'm talking about. I know humans are capable of stimulus response, I'm not even sure if humans qualify as sentient or not let alone bees.
I mean sentience means awareness, humans are not aware of the future. Therefore humans are not sentient.
"Humans are more powerful than animals. "
Elephants are bigger and stronger than humans.
"Also, they have better decision making skills. "
Have you seen people texting? Driving like maniacs? Animals do none of these, and are therefore better at making decisions.
"It is their responsibility to take care of animals, not vice versa."
Wild animals seems to fend for themselves just fine.
" Animals are not as smart as humans. Therefore, humans are supreme."
So intelligence is the deciding factor for you? Did you know that there is only a small difference in intelligence between chimpanzee, bonobo monkeys, and humans?
"Bonobos and chimpanzees look very similar and both share 98.7% of their DNA with humans—making the two species our closest living relatives. " WWF
"In the laboratory the apes have been able to learn sign language and to recognize themselves in a mirror, a sign of self-awareness not yet demonstrated in monkeys. " Frans B. M. de Waal
"Here are 10 animals with self awareness according to the mirror test today." Rebecca Turner
"Then your argument is fallacious (see argumentum ad populum)."
Interesting that a definition could fall under the ad populum fallacy. I've never bothered to challenge definitions. For example, a German shepherd must be a dog by definition, yet is the definition true?
Since the definition of immoral is being challenged. Let me first explain how I perceive morality. There are certain laws of physics. They have existed well before the dinosaurs, let alone man walked the Earth.
Early humans may not have had a name for such concepts as hot, cold, gravity, dry, humid, etc. Yet, nevertheless early hominids most likely understood these concepts to a certain degree.
Over time we have began to unravel some of these mysteries. We now understand why fire is hot and water is wet. Yet, to prehistoric man these basic concepts to us were most likely deep mysteries.
The same goes for morals. Humans stumble through life figuring out the mysteries of the universe through happenstance. We are rewarded for good behavior and punished by evil. Despite not knowing what good and evil is. Just as gravity has the exact same amount of influence regardless of our understanding of gravity.
Evidence to support that humans do not know what good and evil are. Athens versus Sparta. Two diametrically opposed civilizations. One putting a high value on knowledge and the other on might.
In summary, we are only beginning to understand what is good and what is evil. Like a scientific hypothesis the best we can do is keep guessing. A scientific hypothesis is only true, because it hasn't been falsified yet.
Testing a moral framework
Similar to "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the other ones that have been tried. "
Another way to explain is testing a model bridge. Simply, the best bridge is the bridge that can endure the most amount of pressure. All the bridges will break under enough pressure, yet the one who lasts the longest is the best bridge.
The reason why the model bridge example is relevant, is often ideas that hypothetically are sound, are disastrous in real life. A moral framework can only be validated by a test. Similar to different government types.
Let's give the example of Carthage a society that focused on maximizing profit margins. In the end, Carthage was razed by the Romans. Carthage being razed supplies evidence that a society where material wealth is the main value is a poor choice.
Cultures and values
Almost every culture has at least some value on the basics. Strength, courage, endurance, order, freedom, beauty, individuality, conformity, honor, truthfulness, knowledge, wealth, avoidance of pain, and piety. There are more values I cannot think of at the moment.
Yet, what makes these cultures different is the weight or priority on each value. One culture might put piety first and strength second. Another nation may put knowledge first and order second. A culture determines what priority we put on values.
We cannot ignore that man is not the center of the universe nor created the universe. Even if we wish very hard for gravity to cease to exist, there is no noticeable decline in gravity. Same with pain, if a person stubs his or her toe, there is little the mind can do to stifle the pain.
Morals are innate within the universe. Just like gravity and magnetic fields. As of now morals are beyond our understanding. The best we can do is make educated guesses, test the hypothesis, and see what happens. That's why I am making a best guess that theft is wrong.
I know this is long winded, but it would take me much longer to write a shorter version.
"It is not a complex statement. You gave no reason to think that moral belief is valid, which means you were assuming it. When asked to provide a reason, you instead repeated your claim in different words (which you continue to do)."
I think I answered this part now.
"You are, again, begging the question by defining existence to include morality without ever showing that it probably does. You are also assuming that morality is related to desirability without giving any explanation."
Certain actions seem doomed to fail for reasons that science as of today cannot fully explain. Thus, I contend that morally is embedded into the fabric of the universe. Example, sitting too much increases risk for obesity. Modern science is still having trouble with what causes obesity and what doesn't. Thus, its logical that sedentary behavior is undesirable and immoral. Also, it is logical that there are more morals to be found.
"It is an equally safe conclusion to think that the person stealing desires to steal. By preventing them from stealing you are causing them unhappiness. Your morality presumes without cause that the desires of one are more important than the desires of another. You are speaking from your moral bias, rather than demonstrating its soundness."
Yes, but stealing changes a person. A person who plays video games will likely play more video game for more hours per day in the future. A person who steals is more likely to steal in the future. Not only that but the owner often has sentimental value that the thief will never know.
Stealing over and over will damage the thief. A change in the brain, or perhaps in the microorganisms inhabiting the thief's body.
"Amoral egoism and nihilism are compatible, since amoral egoism is not proscriptive or absolute. Not that it matters in this debate; there is a reason I said it was incidental to the discussion."
I'm going to believe you on this point.
"Nothing can be proven absolutely. This does not mean it cannot be proven probable. Your burden of proof stands."
Morals are innate within the universe. Humans did not create morals. Instead, like gravity morals are ever present. One goal in life is to discover these morals to help create a better world for ourselves and others. The positive and negative consequences are predetermined.
Humans build moral frameworks and other constructs to try to explain which morals are more important. Yet, just like we didn't understand magnets nor gravity, there are more universal laws to be found.
In the end, its all guesswork. Which idea is most probable and feasible.
"Theft
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent."
The corporation is giving consent, which makes all the difference. Consent is the difference between a person handing over $50 to a sales person versus being robbed at knife point.
If I ask you to move a chair, I am giving consent, therefore its not theft for you to move the chair.
You are arguing that theft is immoral because it violates a commonly held moral belief. Jace
Affirmative.
"This assumes that the moral belief is valid in the first place, and you are basically just rewording the claim to defend itself which is begging the question."
I'm not sure if this statement made by you is correct or not, I will have to take some time to analyze and process this statement.
" So I ask, once again, why is the moral belief against theft logically sound? "
I will attempt the scientific approach. Science cannot 100% prove anything. Including that humans exist. Yet, we can be 99.9999% sure that we do exist. That's why must people make that .0001% leap and assume we exist.
Assuming existence, we try to figure out what's right and what's wrong. Using a combination of perception and judgement we can predict what will most likely cause desirable and undesirable events.
Via the scientific method and observation we can be about 99% sure that stealing causing unhappiness and stress within the victim. Since unhappiness and stress is considered undesirable this is considered immoral.
In simplest terms, undesirable deeds are considered immoral and desirable moral.
"Incidentally, I happen to be an amoral egoist by way of nihilism which is precisely why I am challenging you to prove your claim."
I will have to see if whether a moral egoist and nihilism philosophies are compatible. By the way, it is impossible for me to prove my claim. In the sense that nothing can be proven. Science will never be able to prove that humans exists nor disprove the existence of unicorns.
"And, by the way, the only thing "odd" about these philosophies is that they are uncommonly held."
Yes, unpopular and odd are synonyms, therefore unpopular philosophies are odd.
Nobody has posted any definitions yet, so I will begin. First, by looking at the similarities in human DNA the idea of relative morals between two human cultures is absurd to me. If aliens starts communicating with humans, then, I might be persuaded.
Now if we look at the differences in bacteria within humans, there is a vast difference in humans. Popular magazines are always talking about gut bacteria differences these days. Since, the gut and brain are connected and a huge percentage of bacteria are in the gut, I contend that the bacteria in our gut determine our personalities.
In other words individuals, are our gut bacteria. This is what makes us unique individuals distinguished from others. Yet, our gut bacteria change depending on our habits and our environment. In brief, our environment and habits determine the vast majority of who we are.
Since, certain habits like positive thinking, mild exercise, and fresh air are always beneficial to the bacteria inside us regardless of location, culture, geography. Its safe to assume that all morals, ethics, values, including liberty are absolute.
"a. The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power." thefreedictionary.com
Oppression causes stress.
Stress negatively affects human gut bacteria.
Therefore, oppression is immoral.
This is true, regardless of nation, location, or local law.
True, but then if you deny or question a basic like theft is wrong, you have to analyze why humans have morals in the first place. Other than a few odd philosophies like ethical egoism, humans more or less universally agreed theft is wrong.
I remember in philosophy class the teacher asking why murder was wrong. An interesting experience to see my peers and myself struggle to answer why.
"Full Definition of IMMORAL
: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles "
As for theft being immoral, theft seems to fit the definition of immoral well. Ultimately I perceive morals as ideas worked out slowly over time. You can rely upon religion or philosophies for guidelines, but sooner or later you'll find some loophole or contradiction. This is why morals tend to be a life time struggle.
As new technology and information emerges we have to constantly rethink our morals and ethics. Whether or not a person uses a traditional moral framework, new questions will always be asked. Cloning, animal sentience, lab grown meat, and so forth.
