New Kitten Exposes Myth of Morality

Morality, by definition, is objective. In contrast to ethics, which admits of relativity.

If something is morally wrong (or right), it is that way NO MATTER WHAT. This is the essence (from the greek ontos) and crux of morality.

So we got a kitten. We have yet to name the little gal but my fave so far is Mojo.

When asked to research the timing of shots and spay for the kitten, I come across:

Obligate Carnivore (insert intense music).

It seems this little gal, and cats like her are obligate carnivores.

In short, cats must eat animal flesh...to survive.

So lets go down a couple of holes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation_problem

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/18/8802755/peter-singer

Some folks want to stop owls from hunting. And cats from surviving. 

Some folks just sidestep and say, "Oh, animals aren't moral agents." 

What are the conditions for moral agency? Who decides? Are the conditions immutable? 

Some talk about collective suffering. Is the cat who can't eat factored into the suffering component?

At bottom, there is no "no matter what" moment for any moral position. It's a myth. 

Thanks Mojo.

Nice To Meat You

Is eating meat objectively wrong? To answer this we have to know what objectively means. Let’s start by pointing out that objective is understood as the opposite of subjective. Subjective basically means one person’s point of view.

So when we ask is it wrong to eat meat we can’t just go ask a dude or a gal because then our answer would only be subjective. Consider that said dude and gal may have different answers.

Things are getting tricky.

So how on earth can we know if something is objectively wrong or right if we can’t ask anybody? How can we know anything if we can’t ask anybody?

Don’t panic.

There are some, oh let us call them, for the moment, factoids that we consider to be true without asking anybody.

Like 2+2=4.

We don’t need Dude or Gal’s input here or anyone’s input. We don’t even need anyone to exist. If the dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct and they’d opened up coffee shops and we kooky humans never existed, 2+2=4 would still be true. Right?

For now, yes.

But let us consider this “never existed” bit, because this is actually a good way to think about objectivity. Whenever asking if anything is objectively true or right or moral we can ask, even if people didn’t exist _____ .

Let’s try it:

Even if people didn’t exist, eating meat would be wrong.

*Cogitates*

So lions are morally in the wrong when they eat meat?

The Venus Flytrap?

Hmmm.

Maybe we need to instead ask is it objectively wrong for people to eat meat.

People may or may not be the worst but some do eat wurst, so we do need to know whether or not it is objectively wrong for them to do so.

How can we get “people eating meat is wrong” to seem like 2+2=4?

All the while minding our even if humans didn’t exist rule, ok fine, guideline.

Wait,

How can we talk about people eating meat while thinking about them not existing?

People are meat so we always, necessarily, have both at the same time. One can't be construed without the other.

This is getting weird.

It's getting meta...

wait for it...

OMG meta is an anagram of meat!

 Do you know what this means?!?!?