Eating meat is good

Eating meat is disgusting.

I wanted to work at a slaughterhouse, to vent my frustrations of society without going to prison. But the act of eating meat is uncivilized and disgusting. It is consuming mangled flesh. I wouldn’t expect anyone to understand unless they are of a higher class of person. Such, I wouldn’t expect a dog to understand. But only someone of a higher class of aesthetics would understand. The only meat that is not disgusting to eat is salmon, it is for a refined and civilized person. The type of person that eats at Whole Foods and shuns McDonalds. The non-degenerate person, of higher caste and heavenly taste.

I realize that working at a slaughterhouse would send my soul to a lower caste, and possibly hell. But since my soul is already suffering, I may simply submerge myself in the waters of damnation, surrendering to the tears of my crimes.

Anthony Hopkins, who played a cannibal, is actually a vegetarian in real life.

An example of the high class lifestyle:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o474oCwnjlU[/youtube]

How?

What way can I value a cow more than I value it as my meal?

In an empathetic way, of valuing the cows feelings even though they are not your feelings, but believing that the cows feelings are valuable to the cow and that the cow has feelings (to begin with.)

I understand the aesthetic that sees eating meat as disgusting. But there are other aesthetics, and the one you espouse is by no means the most “noble” or “refined”. In many ways it is pretentious and superficial for how small it actually is. Why do you think I included in my OP the fact that analytics, positivists and utilitarians are unable to understand the importance of value-selecting according to the hierarchies of value by which we actually do exist?

An example of a noble and refined aesthetic other than the one you describe:

I also noticed that you didn’t bother trying to counter or refute any of the points I made. So I’ll accept that you cannot do so. But I’m happy to see you asserting you value standards here.

I already understand that the cow has feelings and that it values those feelings and its life. If I saw a cow suffering I would feel empathy for it. But those values are lower than the value of the cow nourishing me.

If something can only present itself to you to be valued as a victim, for our empathy, that is quite a low standard of value. Unless other standards are also present. Are they, in the cow? How does the cow contribute to your existence, add to your self-valuing? How can you really value the cow standing around in a field? Don’t lie. Tell me. Why is this cow so valuable to you that you would refuse to consume it for your sustenance and pleasure?

Life consumes life. That’s how life works. Feel free to counter or refute that if you want to try. Also, as I already mentioned, it isn’t possible to expand your valuing (or empathy) to the entire world; trying to do so only destroys your ability to actually value. Values are always personal, and empathy comes from our already existing values. We only care about what we… already are about, for reasons entirely beyond the empathy itself.

Look there are people I hate who I have wanted to hurt. But the society we live in, its all like “You punch someone in the face, you are a sick monster who needs to be locked away.”

All I’m saying is why do we live in a society where I get locked away for hurting a human animal, and yet its perfectly acceptable to butcher a cow to death. If its perfectly acceptable to butcher a cow to death then jesus christ allow me to hurt the people I want to hurt without going to prison!

That’s because you are also a person. Societies of any life form exist to establish rules for the protection of that life form itself. A human society must have rules that protect humans. Also, “human” animals are just animals with access to a larger range of possible values, in depths and heights as well as outwardly, than other animals. I actually respect non-human animals more than I respect human animals, in some ways and in certain instances. But the grass that the cow eats also values itself and wants to keep existing, yet the cow slaughters the grass en mass anyway.

Having a nervous system isn’t what makes a life valuable or self-valuing. Having a nervous system just expands the range of access to possible values, of possible “understandings”. But you’re free to stop eating life and waste away as a starving ascetic if you want, if that is your value.

But a human society that placed the value of a cow as equal to or greater than the value of a human would be irrational, just as would a cow society that valued humans as much or more than cows also be irrational. So you see the only real difference is in the capacity for complex valuing to emerge in a group setting of certain rules and limits that exist for the sake of those values. The cow values itself and wants to exist and not feel pain, I understand and respect these facts. Don’t mistake me for some brute.

That would depend. Define what you mean here as valuing it as my meal?

Grass doesn’t value itself nor does it “want”.
A rock doesn’t value itself.
Molecular bonds don’t value themselves.

Yes they do.

Everything that an animal does to value itself is nothing more than a further derivation of exactly what those molecules are doing, namely holding themselves in existence by resisting incoming forces thy would otherwise disintegrate or damage them.

Life is only a more developed and derivative form of non-life. The underlying fundamental self-valuing (selecting, resisting, incorporating based on holding that which oneself is as the standard-value) is the same.

Valuing is not a function of nervous systems. Nervous systems are functions of valuing.

As a sentient being who’s capable of suffering, just like you.

Philosophy, is the art of gaining greater insight and awareness of one’s environment.

Religion, politics, etc. is the art of complicating simple things, hiding the truth, confusing reality, etc.

Value is an emotional feeling. The specific definition of “value” is an emotional feeling of emotional attachment to something. It is valued. Valuable.

Molecular bonds and rocks do not have emotional feelings. Ascribing feelings to them is the art of religion, politics etc, muddying the truth and confusing the issue to create something interesting sounding like poetry. Meno is very good at this art.

We can call two magnets sticking together, that they are “valuing” each other, in order to confuse our brains, and everyone around us, so we can trick them into believing we are smart because the more we talk the more we make them feel confused, reminding them of being around actual smart people who have the same effect on them, but for different reasons, or we can be scientists, philosophers etc. and say they stick together due to magnetic forces.

Inanimate objects with no consciousness cannot self value because that would require a brain which they do not have
Life may have come from non life but that does not mean there are no fundamental distinctions between these states
The idea therefore that inanimate objects can self value is total woo

As I’ve already said, your consciousness including your thoughts, motivations and emotions is simply a much higher order derivative of the very same logic at work in non-living things. If I hit a rock with a hammer and the rock doesn’t break, what happened? The rock diffused the force of the hammer strike throughout its structure and passed that force out beyond itself, in order to maintain its being a rock. The molecules value (interpret, experience) the incoming force according to what those molecules already are; if a molecule can use the force it does, if not then it attempts to resist the force and pass it through and out of itself. What do you think your digestive system is doing? The same thing. What do you think your emotions are doing? The same thing.

Emotions are so complex and philosophically deep that philosophy hasn’t even scratched the surface yet. I am maybe the only one who had pierced that veil, and then only a little ways. For you to talk about emotions would require you to know what they are, which you don’t. And once you understand what they are you see the direct tectonic link between what a rock is doing and what your emotions are doing.

Valuing means selecting, interpreting in order to either incorporate or reject-resist. Literally everything in existence does this, because if it did not then it would not exist.

Molecules dont experience or interpret.
The only people who believe that are panpsychics and Ecmandu.

Physics is not a logic system. Logic is a binary system that forms tree pathways, sometimes looping back to other nodes.
That is why physics simulations are inaccurate of reality, because they are rendered using logic systems, and actual physics is not a logic system (logic is a binary pathway system and reality is a fluid infinitude spectrum.)

Emotions are physical sensations, different flavors of stresses. In order for a rock to experience emotions it needs to have experience within it, which it doesn’t.

No that means choosing. Valuing is the emotion that influences whether or not something is chosen. I incorporate something if it is valuable. Valuing is not the verb of me incorporating it, valuing is the verb of me feeling the emotion that I should incorporate it (or not incorporate it.)

No. We did not select ourselves to be born, nor did we value ourselves before we were born, for instance, and neither did stars.

A rock cannot self value because it does not have a brain and so is therefore incapable of subjective interpretation
Panpsychism is woo of the highest order and I am surprised to see anyone on a philosophy forum taking it seriously

“Filtering” would be a better word for the inanimate and also applies to the animate, mind, psyche, and society. Natural anentropic filtering causes duration of being. That which filters in that which positively affects its anentropic state and also filters out that which negatively affects its anentropic state maintains and endures.

I used the word “shelter”, but “filter” would probably have been less ambiguous.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypDrw4CHhw[/youtube]

And that is largely why people eat meat in the first place. I agree that the trend should be changed, but only by the right means. And that isn’t likely to happen.

Why?