i'm drunk and ive been reading a certain unfinished work by a Mr. Twain and it has the hamster wheel turning.

Thread needed a cultural attaché.

In Peru people eat guinea pig, which is a common pet where I live.

"Different strokes for different folks." True? False? Real? Culture is not your friend?

Wolves were pertinent to our ancestor's survival.
Hence, man's best friend, and the general trend with something seemingly 'wrong' with eating a dog.

Humans possess a conscience, generally speaking. Acts that lead to emotional discomfort, specifically guilt and shame, fall into what we class as immoral. True or false? If you agree, and somehow believe yourself to fall outside the category of a moralist, you must reconcile the two.



The next question might be - Why do humans possess a conscience? You can work that one out yourself.

As to whether it's more wrong to eat a cow, over a human or a dog, that answer is clear to me. Suffering is the only thing that matters (regarding all the kinds of complexities involved).

You can be moral, in general, without being a moralist. You can also be amoral. You can make your own code of morals.

Just because you, like many, value the avoidance of suffering and the sanctity of life above other values, doesn't mean others have to reconcile their own values to your standards.

P.s. very happy with this post. Managed to slip a titty in there.

A conscience really has nothing really to do directly with morals. Go ahead a try to write your conscience down or access another's conscience directly.

Face it, when it comes to another's conscience, you are either projecting or guessing, unless you listen carefully and someone is willing to share what their conscience means to them.

Depends on your definition of 'moralist'. Clarify how one can be moral without being a moralist, and thus why it's interesting.

Share a value that trumps the non-existence of suffering.

Morals are objective? There is a pesky subjectivity problem getting in the way of objectifying them?

I'll keep it simple, at the risk of repeating myself.

Think Ned Flanders.

I'll give you two.

Freedom. The freedom to choose which value trumps which other value. Balance. Balance between doing the good thing and doing the bad or selfish thing.

https://youtu.be/lLCEUpIg8rE

Seems like humans are equipped with an intrinsic moral sense. Something of a foundation to keep the ride going smoothly. The overwhelming majority of people feel bad at the thought of another suffering. There is good reason for that from an evolutionary perspective. As mac mentioned, that sense manifests itself as conscience.



You do have freedom to ignore these fundamental morals and assign values for yourself. But you're still defying your conscience.

A more appropriate framework in my view is internal and external. A conscience is an internal faculty, while a moral or an ethic is an external collection of words.

How can you know another's internal faculty with any certainty to conclude it's being defied? Alls you have to rely upon is an external collection of words and your own conscience.

And , If you superimpose your conscience upon another's, how does that leave them with their own conscience?

How can you know anything with any certainty?

You defy what feels good or feels right all the time.

You quit smoking or quit drinking although large parts of you may not want to. You change your habits or routines although it may not feel right at the time. You substitute first-order desires for second-order desires all the time, especially if you're a moralist; you do this more so than anyone else.
This is a whole other issue worthy of exploration.

Conscience is within, yet outerworldly. To follows one's conscience, without consideration, is being unfree.

You're always concious "of some thing". Whether object, memory, feeling or whatever.

But.

You're also concious of being concious "of some thing".

Consciousness is circular. Unlike logic.

What else is circular? Infin...?

Life is a free roll and there isn't anything one ought to do...and besides bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good.

You're not always "conscious" of something as in sleep there is a "dream consciousness" of little or marginal comprehension and of course deep sleep which to our way of thinking is "unconscious" . We, in a sense, work within "day consciousness" but its not the whole puzzle.

There are some; in past, present and future, who are able to stay "intact" and able to be consciously aware of the experiences of deep sleep or what we may call our "unconscious time".

The study and comprehension of Man is inextricably interwoven with this realm of the "unconscious" for without consideration of Man's entry into sleep we are left with a emptiness of thought as to what is the nature of Man.

Within Man, in our present existence, we work this "unconscious" realm as our "will" and in imagery our metabolic limb digestive system. This "unconscious" realm is also the source of our mathematics and so just as we don't wait for knowledge of our metabolic/limb digestive system in order to digest (we would die then) we also bring mathematics to the fore in our science , an exploration of the realities of Man.

The spirit and soul of Man "thinks, feels, and wills" and the external expression of these three realms is our nervous system, cardiovascular /respiratory system and our metabolic limb/ digestive system, respectively. The most "unclear" or "unconscious" is the realm of the ""will". Hello Schopenhauer...

Not at all. Here are some dog meat recipes from the internet. Enjoy....Bon appetite.

bosintang-dog-meat-stew

Dog_Meat_Soup


Cook-Lemongrass-Dog

Well, on a spectrum from 'more uncertain' to 'more certain', I'd place a person's own sense and awareness of their internal faculties as closer to more certain. While having a sense of another's internal faculties closer to more uncertain.

That's the way it is for everything. How can we even differentiate between internal and external with any certainty? A leap of faith? Once this notion is accepted, all we have to rely upon is the collection of external information which slides the needle back and forth from "more uncertain" to "more certain".

There are venerable arrays of articulable more certainties and more uncertainties that happen.

You ask how, but a better question why and it is an indirect matter of "we" because of who precisely can do differentiating who exactly can decide certainty and uncertainty by any quality? . That it is one by one is a relevant observation.

To put into thread perspective, an individual's diet is a certainty as much as there are receipts for lunch in toilets. Where is the reason to interfere with that diet while your diet is just like that too.

You want food boxes decided by someone with conditions about your ethics and morals , or do you want your diet of food satisfactory?

Just basically design a stupid animal that has low very low intelligence or lives only for the day to day activity without any planning proven to occur not even long term memory if possible and all is solved.

Eventually it will be possible to just grow chicken breasts and beef/pork stakes and grind it for burgers etc and it will be game over.

It can all be done nicely if we use science properly. There is no pain or consciousness in plants so lets go in that direction for all consumption without losing taste and nutritional values in protein meat.

It will be done, it's inevitable. But it has to be done right or we will all get cancer and become superfat if we allow it to be a money making cut corners process.

The trick is to not worry about certainty at all. You might be a piece of belly button lint that just thinks that you are reading this and there is no acceptable method of determining the likelihood that you are or are not. Given such, it is just mental masturbation. Don't take it as a slam. Masturbation is important whether you are belly button lint that just has some weird belief that it is a human being or are an actual fully functioning human being.

Smaller problems are easier. The "given these assumptions" sort of problems are the only worthwhile ones*. I always assume, for instance, that my beer will taste like beer when I am determining whether to have another beer. I certainly don't have any sort of proof that the next one won't taste ultraviolet or scratchy, but it has proved to be a useful assumption so far.

*outside of the above mentioned masturbation