Utilitarianism, as is typically used, is a moral philosophy founded by John Stuart Mill.

If you're using a different definition, then please share it, but as it is defined by most people and philosophical resources it is definitely a moral philosophy.

Definition:



No mention of morality. According to the definition what would be right or good in this case is consuming cow because it's "usefulness of it's consequences" You meshing words together and attempting to create new definitions to support a nonsensical statement such as if we were utilitarian we wouldn't consume any meat at all is disingenuous.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 2 2018 10:26pm

You're old enough and educated enough to know copying and pasting a definition isn't the end-all of a word's meaning.

Historically utilitarianism has been defined as a moral philosophy, started by Bentham and Mill. If you start saying utilitarianism that is how most people will interpret what you are saying.

If we are simply taking it as how useful an action would be, then the usefulness of meat production is negative since it consumes more resources than it produces, and we have more than enough capacity to meet all nutritional needs with plant-based solutions. In fact, we could currently feed the world with adequate nutrition using much less energy and resources than we do now creating meat.

Utilitarianism is literally an ethical philosophy.

And ethics is the entire basis of this discussion lol.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jan 3 2018 06:02am

This may be hard to believe but most people prefer to eat meat to eating oatmeal or some other tasteless food as a source of protein. Once again read the definition, there is a reason why the second part of the definitions states:

aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasureover pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

Eating meat provides utility to humans not just because we need the animal protein but also because we enjoy it. Your claim that utilitarianism would end meat consumption is categorically incorrect.




And which philosophy doesn't deal with ethics even tangentially? I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse here. I've explained the difference between the two that makes one acceptable to slaughter and the other not so much. It's about customs and norms. Thousands of years ago we as humans decided that cows are good for milk and meat. Thousands of years ago we decided dogs are good for xyz. Eventually we developed relationships with dogs that we didn't with cows. In some areas of the globe humans didn't come to the same conclusions. That's why in India it's unethical to kill a cow or why in certain regions of China it's acceptable to eat dog. So no, logically they are not equivalent because it ignores historical perspectives which define what's considered ethical.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 3 2018 10:50am

Synthetic meat is the future I think. Read some news/research about companies getting better at it. Once we reach the point where we can create synthetic meat that has the same nutritional value and taste of good meat , it will be hard to pass up and I'm probably going to be on board with it. I've cut red meat out of my life pretty heavily now , only eating it once or twice a month usually but not willing to give up chicken or tuna since I just prefer doing that and personally cutting out meat entirely just doesn't work for me.

It might come sooner than we think.

It's crazy how fast technology is advancing society. AI is getting crazier and crazier. Battery technology is getting better too. Will be crazy to see where we are at in 30-50 years. Just hope we somehow will be able to mitigate the potential negative effects climate change might bring.

So in cultures where rape and torture are advocated it's ethical cause history.

Didn't take you for a relativist.



So it's ok to kill animals because the pleasure humans get from meat totally outweighs the suffering it causes.

Fuck outta here you can't seriously be so naive to believe that.

But you're right, you Googled the definition of utilitarianism once so you're basically an expert in prescriptive analysis in the field, not like this has been a topic of discussion for centuries or anything.

Side note I don't think I've ever seen a more exaggerated use of the word "categorically".

It is the definition of a system of morality. It doesn't need to mention it because it's obvious to anyone who isn't an utter moron. When we talk about what is 'right or good' we are talking about morality.

This post was edited by Scaly on Jan 3 2018 12:21pm

Didn't peg you as a cultural relativist.

The utility humans get from eating meat is totally worth it. Listen if you want to be a soy boy i have no problem with that, just don't push your hyperbolic ideology onto me. And no categorically is the appropriate term. By definition & by common understanding of what utilitarianism is, eating meat is considered good.



Again with this peripheral tangent. In utilitarianism there could be potential scenarios such as slavery in which by utilitarian standards slavery is a "good" because it maximizes utility for the population as a whole. This is just one example in which what is "good" as defined by a system like utilitarianism is actually the opposite of moral.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 3 2018 07:38pm