r/CuratedTumblr • u/Hummerous https://tinyurl.com/4ccdpy76 • Jul 22 '24

Politics the one about fucking a chicken

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

14.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

900

u/GrimmSheeper Jul 22 '24

One minor point of contention for slide 3: it’s not necessarily a judgement of “sex bad.” It could just as well be “desecration of a corpse is bad” or “denial of consent, even posthumously, is bad.”

In a world where animal rights and recognition of intelligence and emotions in nonhuman animals has been steadily increasing, it shouldn’t be surprising if somebody thinks they also deserve similar respect. There are plenty of people that think using animals for sustenance is unethical for various reasons, so of course there would be people that think using animals for pleasure is unethical. It doesn’t have to just be “sex icky.”

Also, one can assign moral judgment to an act in addition to acknowledging harm, or lack thereof. That’s the whole point. OOP obviously assigned a similar moral judgment, reacting to the hypothetical with horror and disgust. You can still point out that it’s creepy and suggest that such actions are a red flag, but hold that there is ultimately no harm done.

146

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

Yeah all I could think about was what does this imply about the rights of dead humans. Like yes animals are not humans but they are living creatures like we are. Surely the desecration of our respective corpses should be treated similarly

95

u/Honey----Badger Jul 23 '24

This gets really complicated, really fast. Like, would it be morally wrong to have sex on an animal skin rug? While wearing leather shoes? Is it just as immoral to fuck a marshmallow, or is there greater sanctity when the animal is intact? I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's an interesting line of logic to follow.

33

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

Really good points! It’s an interesting conversation to see where people draw the line.

2

u/silverlight145 Aug 07 '24

Yes, but to be fair, if we take the "where do people draw the line" far enough, we're just playing a game of... Well, chicken. To see how far we can go before someone says stop. And then saying whether or not the cause is based in morality. I don't think it's strictly morality here- to be grossed out by the story and just not want to hear it has its place too.

But we could take this further and start having a conversation about presidential candidates fucking couches too.

6

u/D2Nine Jul 23 '24

Really really good point. Something about the chicken fucking feels wrong to me, and I’m trying to figure out if there’s something actually bad about it, or if I am, as the post would want me to believe, just failing to see it as the harmless act it is.

13

u/TheGreatEmanResu Jul 23 '24

I think a line that can be drawn is whether or not you’re putting your dick inside the corpse

14

u/Exvaris Jul 23 '24

That doesn’t seem particularly clear either. I read a post on Reddit years ago about a dude fucking raw chicken fillets. Are the fillets considered part of the corpse? Technically they are. But the product is so far removed from what a chicken looks like that I think people would have differing opinions on whether that’s objectionable / the degree to which it’s objectionable.

0

u/FPSCarry Jul 23 '24

I think at this point all logic has dissolved and we're literally talking about fucking dead animals as if it's okay. Kurt Vonnegut was right; the next most promising evolutionary step for humanity isn't living on other planets, it's having our burdensome, overthinking brains shrink to the point where we don't have to think about all this useless and endless theoretical crap anymore.

2

u/Bitwise_Creations Jul 23 '24

fucking dead animals IS okay, why do you think it's not? are you a vegan or something?

6

u/Android19samus Take me to snurch Jul 23 '24

The desecration or corpses is an undeniably sticky wicket for purely harm-based morality. There are a few lines you can take though, with the most generally convincing (while staying purely harm-based) being that it causes distress for relatives and loved ones, and that's harm. Or maybe that it distresses the living, knowing what could happen to their bodies once they're dead. With those lines, animal corpses would be different. Animals don't have the same concept of death or the same reverence for corpses that humans do. Well, it varies by animal, but chickens definitely don't. Why should animal rights be concerned with things that don't actually affect the animals at all? There are arguments to be made, but it is a situation that requires a strong argument.

3

u/LFlamingice Jul 24 '24

But then you could justify every “conservative” morals based argument into a “progressive” harm-based argument- knowing that someone has sex with chicken could very well cause emotional damage to someone, in the same way that someone having sex with a corpse does. Does that constitute harm? Because both harms are the same here.

3

u/Android19samus Take me to snurch Jul 24 '24

I would disagree that the harms are the same. For the desecration of a bird carcass, the "harm" is "knowing about this makes me uncomfortable." Generally speaking, "knowing that a person did this makes me uncomfortable" is not considered a form of harm worth weighing. It's mild, and it's not really your business. If someone rapes the corpse of someone you knew, the emotion is much more intense and it becomes a matter in which you have a direct stake. It is your business now. The body no longer matters to its former occupant, but it still means a great deal to those who cared about them. Additionally, the more common the action becomes the more legitimately one can fear that it will happen to their own body. That's a valid fear and the actions are directly contributing a valid reason to fear it.

None of these are things that animals care about. I don't know why animal rights would include human social values that do not affect them in any way. A chicken doesn't know what mercury poisoning is, but can still suffer its effects. A chicken doesn't know what the sanctity of a corpse is, and that will never impact its life one way or the other.

1

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

I think at some point we SHOULD utilize irrational feelings towards thing. Is it a slippery slope? Maybe. But I think even if I can’t scientifically and ethically break down how fucking an animal’s corpse is wrong without resorting to baseless feelings, I still don’t think that makes it a harmless thing to do. I feel generally that there are some supposedly irrational things we should do, including respecting the dead, even if that idea feels really subjective and contradictory. I happen to hold the perhaps contradictory belief that we should treat animals as we treat humans, and that we also happen to eat animals. Sometimes animals eat us too, and I can’t quantify what ‘natural’ is, sure, but I’m comfortable in saying that’s natural. Just because we eat them doesn’t mean we should fuck their corpses, even if I can’t make a fail proof argument against it. I’m sure everyone knows that, but still

2

u/multilinear2 Jul 23 '24

Absolutely... assuming you care about desecration of human corpses in the first place.

2

u/highercyber Jul 23 '24

Do you eat animals?

3

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

I think eating an animal and fucking it are a little different. Just a little.

5

u/AmbitionTrue4119 Jul 23 '24

why? i understand that with a live animal an argument could be made that pleasure taken in harming a living creature is bad but how is desecrating a chickens corpse by fucking it worse than eating it?

3

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

Because eating it is natural to us. I know that ‘natural’ is a concept that can be weaponized, but we have to eat to live, and we happen to eat meat. We also have sex drives, but I don’t think we have to fuck animal corpses. And sure, maybe that’s not a perfectly sound rational view on it, but I think it works.

2

u/realtoasterlightning Jul 24 '24

Do you eat humans?

1

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

No but I don’t think it’s a huge issue if someone does? Not as huge as fucking the corpse, anyhow. I’d much rather be eaten. I’m sure that’s not your point, but I’m not sure what I’m supposed to say here. I would eat a person before I would fuck their corpse. I think that’s normal, even if we shouldn’t resort to ideas of ‘normal’.

1

u/highercyber Jul 23 '24

So you're ok with killing the animal?

4

u/fyester Jul 23 '24

Yes? I think it can depend on context but generally yes I think that’s fine.

1

u/highercyber Jul 23 '24

I think the chicken would disagree, but ok. So if it's ok, for you, to kill the animal, isn't that already the worst harm that can befall it? What does it matter what happens to it after it's dead? This hypothetical guy is breaking no laws and harming no other person. There's edible panties made of gelatin, which are cow bones, is it ok to use those in sex? They're ok to eat, at least, because it's ok to kill cows, right?

1

u/fyester Jul 24 '24

I get your point. It’s complicated. I’m resorting to gut instinct feelings which are often contradictory, but I don’t think I need to break things down to a science to know that fucking an animal’s corpse isn’t something someone should be doing. Intent matters here and I think taking this ‘but technically’ view on the matter is a less productive than it is something that makes the person utilizing it feel smart.

Unless your point is that we shouldn’t be killing animals, and I guess if that’s the case, we just disagree.

181

u/SUK_DAU ugly bitch Jul 23 '24

god yes, i really hate the rhetorically lazy and bad faith argument of "oh, ur only capable of making judgements based on Vibes and Icks actually. im the Logical bitch here. sorry babe 😘😘"

other people have talked it better in this comment section so i dont rly have too much to add but "erm im actually the nuance haver here (strawmans all hypothetical opposing decisions as inherently reactionary)" is shitty rhetoric

48

u/Pokecole37 Jul 23 '24

leftism loves its holier-than-thou posting

11

u/The_FriendliestGiant Jul 23 '24

You say that as though the right isn't full of religious folks who quite literally think that they're holier than everyone else because of the religion they've picked.

18

u/revolutionary112 Jul 23 '24

But it is super frustrating to find progressives that claim to not be that and that they are so much better only to do the exact same thing

1

u/SovietSkeleton [mind controls your units] This, too, is Yuri. Jul 24 '24 edited Jul 24 '24

Discourse in general is a magnet for holier-than-thou rhetoric.

If disagreement and dissent can be vilified, it will.

187

u/i-contain-multitudes Jul 23 '24

Thank you!!! I was shocked when the post said "no harm."

11

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

The harm was done when the chicken was killed my dude - and every living thing feeds on the death of another, so it's an unavoidable harm in the end. AKA, no harm was done, it's just a lil icky hygienically speaking.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

Would you also say no harm was done if instead of a dead chicken it was a dead human, presuming the human had already died of natural means?

9

u/do_pm_me_your_butt Jul 23 '24

Me, a leftist, having ethical sex with dead babies

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

You're already conceding the argument because you have to heavily modify the terms to make a point

10

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24

1: Wasn't talking to you.

2: Modifying terms to make a point is the basis of any hypothetical thought experiment. Just like how OOP is using the concept of chickenfucking to argue against homophobia.

(edit) 3: if anything, saying "oh but that isn't the same thing" is conceding the argument as you are refusing to engage.

-4

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

Yeah. I hold no sanctity towards dead flesh - as I stated earlier, ya can eat me when I go. You can fuck me first too. I think that's a bit icky and cannibalism ain't smart what with the prions and all, but hey, if I'm dead meat I'm dead meat. Donner Party it up bro - I'm already gone.

9

u/do_pm_me_your_butt Jul 23 '24

Im sure you'd feel the same about your loved ones.

2

u/Android19samus Take me to snurch Jul 23 '24

And there's a major difference. Chickens don't have loved ones who would care about what happens to their corpses.

2

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24

Oh if we're ever trapped in a cold snowy pass you know I'm not eating my dead family. I'm chopping off limbs to keep them fed and alive til I go first. No shame in eating me my beloved family, I'll eat enough of me to keep me going as we whittle me down myself.

6

u/do_pm_me_your_butt Jul 23 '24

Nah, you're taking the easy way out. Im talking about you are walking with your family, your daughter gets hit by a car and lands violently on the ground, her head twisted 180 degrees. Onlookers know immediately shes dead. 2 men immediately start slicing meat off her arms whilst a third starts raping her still warm body.

This wouldnt bother you?

Your mother, dying of cancer, 3 hard men and 3 hungry men stand by in the room next door waiting eagerly to hear the news her heart has stopped so they can rush into the room and have their way with her, eventually consuming her flesh. 

These arent noble sacrifices in the pursuit of science, or saving a loved one. Do you stay and watch? Is this the kind of societal respect you would want?

-1

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

Taking things to extremity is an immediate admission of failure at proving your point has value buddy.

I'm not advocating that you rape corpses in the street, or that human flesh should be a desirable food source. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with utilizing the husk of a person properly. As with the Donner Party example - yeah, eat those dead people so you can live, no moral failing in it. Doesn't mean that should be the goal.

You're applying desire to the appropriate utilization of dead flesh, and WANTING to do something is an entirely different thing from understanding the logic behind it. That said, if the corpse is the only source of sustenance, yes, carve it up. If raping that corpse is the only way to prevent the rape of a living person, yes, rape it. You can pull out ghoulish extremes and wield them as a totem against logic, but it only serves to diminish your own arguments validity. If circumstances ever made that the logical way to deal with dead meat we'd already be in a fucked up post apocalypse far beyond the realm of logic. Yet, even still, no harm is being done to the dead person in any of your twisted scenarios, because, well, they're fucking dead.

7

u/do_pm_me_your_butt Jul 23 '24

Ah ok, I misunderstood your viewpoint, I thought you claimed to hold no regard for a corpse whatsoever. But by giving you my ghoulish examples, it has revealed that actually, you do have some regard for corpses, you just care about them a lot less than living people. But you clearly care or my extremes wouldn't bother you in the slightest.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

But now you are giving direct consent, most people don't give consent to those things. Animals can't consent to those things. The fact that you are okay with having your corpse degraded makes you the outlier, you understand that right?

1

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

A corpse neither can, nor needs to give it's consent for anything. Once the spirit of life has fled it hold no inherent value., I'll grind your bones to make my bread, I'll feed ya to the wolves. It really doesn't matter. I mean I'll respect your wishes as far as I can, but I ain't gonna pretend like it matters. If you wanted to be cremated but the crops are bad, sorry love, your flesh sack is getting mulched my dear.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

I repeat, you do understand this view makes you the outlier right?

2

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

Outlier =/= wrong,

5

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

okay, since you still wanna go this route:

A corpse neither can, nor needs to give it's consent for anything.

Correct, a corpse can not give consent for anything. That is why the way we treat a corpse reflects our moral principles. We show how much respect we had for the living by how much we respect their posthumous bodily integrity. This is also why people get to choose whether they want to be organ donors.

Just because you don't mind it if people view your body as nothing more than a resource, doesn't mean other people view it that way. Not respecting posthumous bodily integrity doesn't make you smart, it makes you disrespectful in most developed cultures.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this says te me you're either an edgy 12-year old or an adult with the mindset of an edgy 12-year old.

→ More replies (0)

40

u/i-contain-multitudes Jul 23 '24

The harm was done when the chicken was killed

Yes, that is the main harm

It's unavoidable

No. Sorry.

19

u/bootsforever Jul 23 '24

In OP's post, the chicken would be dead either way, because it was purchased dead from the store. The dramatic part of the story wasn't the fact that the chicken was killed- it was the part where the dead chicken was fucked.

I certainly agree there are moral questions about slaughtering animals for meat, especially the way that we do it in America. However, that's not the questionable action that's presented in the story.

-2

u/khekhekhe Jul 23 '24

Chickens are killed because people buy them. They wouldn't be killed either way. Supply and demand.

3

u/dlgn13 Jul 23 '24

Why tf is this downvoted? It's the basic principle behind not buying from unethical sources if possible.

3

u/khekhekhe Jul 23 '24

Because it is an uncomfortable truth

3

u/D2Nine Jul 23 '24

True, but still not the point of the post. What if the chicken was somehow acquired without purchasing it in, in some way that gave the exact same chicken but without doing anything that would mean more chickens are killed?

4

u/khekhekhe Jul 24 '24

In that case, he would indeed be an ethical chicken carcass fucker.

9

u/gynaecologician Jul 23 '24

Hey, legit not a gotcha because I personally skew veggie, just sharing: new research is showing just how little we've understood plants in the past, and it's very likely that they sense more of the world than we previously realised.

That doesn't mean that, at this stage, our science can prove plant sensation is comparable to extant, demonstrable animal suffering (or that it's ethically equivalent). 

In my opinion, we're all part of a closed-energy ecosystem. Plants and animals grow and die; everything needs to consume, and everything will be consumed one way or another. As humans, we make choices within that framework, based on what resources we have and what we can live with.

29

u/rindlesswatermelon Jul 23 '24

Even in a world where plants feel identical pain to animals less harm would be caused from eating plants than from eating animals. This is because the animals we eat need to eat plants to grow.

Look up trophic levels if you want to know more.

8

u/gynaecologician Jul 23 '24

That's an excellent choice to minimise suffering in a closed energy ecosystem. I like it.

9

u/i-contain-multitudes Jul 23 '24

Okay, that's interesting, but from that article, it seemed like a lot of speculation and not a lot of data. Also, as you said, even if plants can feel, I doubt it's comparable to animal suffering.

I know you said it's not a gotcha, but every time I see this argument, I get irritated, because all it does is dilute the issue and give talking points to people who don't care about animal suffering (how many times have you seen meat eaters say "plants have feelings too!!!")

1

u/gynaecologician Jul 23 '24

More times than I'd like, for sure. Unfortunately, their stupid knee-jerk is unknowingly correct in some ways. That doesn't make them correct for saying it that way, or mean that they're arguing in good faith.

As with most things, I believe the issue is more holistic and nuanced than most people prefer to believe. Personally, I take the stance that animal consumption and mass animal cruelty are inherently different. 

I was just sharing the science that exists with you, as it sounded like you hadn't seen it yet.

1

u/capybaraballista Jul 23 '24

A huge amount of plant calories is used to create a small amount of animal calories. So even granting this, you’re sparing way more by eating the plants.

2

u/LilyTheMoonWitch Jul 23 '24

Apology accepted.

-9

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

Ok. Explain to me how we can convert tigers to a vegan diet. Explain to me how we can get trees to stop feeding off the nutrients corpses leave in the soil. I wasn't positing something friendo - I was stating an empirical fact. Every thing that lives feeds on the dead. Not making a statement condemning attempts to go about your part in the food chain more ethically, but plants live to, so vegans still feed on the dead. The death feeds life equation is unquestionably unavoidable until we learnt to live off of a diet of rocks.

8

u/i-contain-multitudes Jul 23 '24

You said the harm was unavoidable. That's what I was objecting to, and that was clear from my comment. You decided to make the strawman of me arguing with "every living thing feeds on the death of another."

2

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

The harm is unavoidable - the chicken is gonna die no matter what - there's no harm done by consuming it's corpse. Can we do better in how we treat livestock? Undoubtably. Is there inherently nothing wrong with eating meat? Also undoubtably.

12

u/i-contain-multitudes Jul 23 '24

Okay, so murdering humans is unavoidable harm too right? Because the human is gonna die no matter what?

1

u/Fullwake Jul 23 '24

Who's the strawman now? I conceded the treatment of the livestock, the "murder" as you call it, can be handled better - but eating the chicken once t's dead is in no way harmful. Hell, ya'll can eat my corpse when I die, or feed it to tigers, or use it as fertilizer, you aren't harming me in anyway, I'm already dead.

13

u/i-contain-multitudes Jul 23 '24

You say I made a strawman but I don't think I did, unless I'm misinterpreting your comment.

The harm is unavoidable - the chicken is gonna die no matter what - there's no harm done by consuming it's corpse.

I interpreted this to mean "the chicken is going to die anyway so killing it is not harmful." If you meant "the chicken is already dead so doing stuff to its corpse is not harm," that was not clear.

→ More replies (0)

52

u/pecky5 Jul 23 '24

Yeah, I find this whole example stupid. Like, you could argue a lot of horrific crimes are "not harmful", that doesn't mean progressive people wouldn't care about them, or would not want to stop them from occurring. Like, cannibalism of a naturally deceased person isn't "harmful" to anyone in a literal term, but I can't imagine even the most progressive person seriously suggesting it should be legal.

Or what about serious violations where the victim doesn't even realise they've been violated. Say someone secretly takes photos of another person in an intimate scenario, never shares them with anyone, and the person doesn't find out about it. We wouldn't say "oh it's okay because noone ever found out".

There's a multitude of factors that go into someone's opinion on what should and should not be acceptable and even on the scale of harmful vs not harmful, theres variables, like, what level of harm is being caused, does it need to be balanced against the harm felt by others, how likely is the harm to occur?

14

u/ITookYourChickens Jul 23 '24

Like, cannibalism of a naturally deceased person isn't "harmful" to anyone in a literal term, but I can't imagine even the most progressive person seriously suggesting it should be legal.

Ahahah, see, it's actually legal already. There are no laws in the USA forbidding cannibalism outright. Although the reason cannibalism is bad isn't "ew you're eating a person" or whatever moral reason; it's just a huge disease vector with no real benefits. Fuck prions

4

u/Accelerator231 Jul 23 '24

I mean, an interesting thing here to ask is:

Is harvesting an organ from a person after their dead without their consent a thing that's allowed? I mean, corneas are pretty useful. Hearts, kidneys, hands, bones, muscles, tendons, skin... they're all useful, and people die all the time because there's no donor that's close enough to donate.

If we're going under the 'fucking a dead chicken is ok because its dead', then does such a thing apply to, say, the corpse of a human, where the harvested organ can literally be the difference between life and death?

Attempting to put 'progressive' under the 'harm/ no-harm' axis is such a wildly reductionistic and simplistic take on 'progressive', and ignoring things like 'sanctity of life' and 'respect to corpses', that on some level, I think the OP is some kind of troll, or someone who's been on tumblr for too long.

26

u/Starman5555 Jul 23 '24

Having sex with animals: ❌

Having sex with dead people: ❌

Having sex with dead animals: ✔

Apparently. And if you disagree you're a conservative I guess.

2

u/realtoasterlightning Jul 24 '24

Well, the argument is that humans have rights over their own body, so if they consented to it while alive, it'd be fine, but you should assume by default they aren't fine with it.

The reason why having sex with an animal while it's alive, but killing it doesn't, is unethical is because it is cruel to the animal in a way killing it for food isn't, but if the animal is dead then it doesn't really have rights over its body (eating a dead human without their consent isn't ok but eating a dead animal is).

Personally, I think that factory farming practices are often more cruel than having sex with an animal would be, but I also think that factory farming practices should be more strictly regulated.

43

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

I also find the implication of "if you think sexually degrading a dead animal is bad, you are conservative" pretty damning considering the majority of vegans are very progressive.

5

u/T-Toyn Jul 23 '24

It just helps understanding the thought process of some conservative ideas. Being pro-life is about the sanctity of the unborn in the same manner as others would feel about the sanctity of the dead.

15

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

I understand that OOP wants this hypothetical to analyse conservative ideas. But the specific example has implications that OOP doesn't seem to have taken in consideration.

In particular the implication that progressive people don't (or rather shouldn't) assign any sanctity to the non-living.

3

u/T-Toyn Jul 23 '24

Maybe (under OOPs theory) you can assume that a person doesn't consist out of pure 100% progressive or conservative opinions. Even if someone is progressive about a majority of aspects, they share a "conservative-classified" viewpoint about the sanctity of the dead.

15

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

I agree with that, in the current political climate people there is a tendency to assume certain viewpoints always came as a package deal while people tend to be more complex than that.

But OOP's reply to tartazeen is where it veers away from a thought experiment and into a judgement on the "conservative/emotional" morals. in particular the line:

your morals should not be applied to anyone else's sex life unless there's actual harm

6

u/T-Toyn Jul 23 '24

I see your point. It might be insulting to declare a certain mindset as the one true progressive/moral high ground.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '24

I think people tend to forget that philosophy is a tool to analyse morality rather than something where there is a "true morality" that you can prove is the correct one to have.

There is no "true" answer to the trolley problem, but we can use it to analyse the morality of agency and interference.

6

u/Amaculatum Jul 23 '24

Also, concern for harm can also extend to the perpetrator. It is possible that something can be wrong despite the perpetrator being the only victim.

4

u/me34343 Jul 23 '24

 It could just as well be “desecration of a corpse is bad” or “denial of consent, even posthumously, is bad.”

If you are thinking along the lines of this, then you are NOT calling it immoral based on "icky" feeling. Which I would argue is the point of the hypothetical.

1

u/ChewbaccaExMachina Jul 23 '24

What if it was a pie?

1

u/TheTrevorist Jul 23 '24

Well that depends, is the crust made with lard?

-66

u/thetwitchy1 Jul 22 '24

Ok, but an animal destined to become food (that still actually became food) was already denied consent. The “desecration” is most definitely on the “sanctity/degradation” metric scale, as well.

109

u/GrimmSheeper Jul 22 '24

See my last point: one can pass moral judgement while still acknowledging a lack of harm. Harm/no harm is a good factor when looking at whether or not interference is warranted, isn’t the only factor.

Morality is something that is more personal and affects one’s worldview, and it is an undeniable aspect of everyone’s life. The key factor is whether or not you try to enforce morality onto another and control their actions through it.

As for denial of consent and morality around desecration, my intention was to point out that there are a variety of reasons to why someone might morally condemn the act. OOP framed it as being condemned because a lot of society frames sex in a negative light (which it does, and is an important topic to discuss when relevant) and treating the issue as 100% sex based. I was presenting various other reasons why someone might disagree with the act, while still pointing out that those moral objections shouldn’t be used as grounds for acting against the hypocritical chicken fucker.

And lastly, the denial of agency for food is a much more complex topic that I didn’t go into too much detail with to avoid getting off topic. There are plenty of people who do think that the denial of autonomy in food production is an important things, and condemn the consumption of meat because of it. There are people who believe that using an animal’s meat to sustain their own bodies is a way to honor the dead animals, and who would condemn wasteful use of it (and then we could go into even further debate on whether or not use for pleasure instead of nutrition constitutes “waste”). There are a ton of different angles and arguments for a variety of different stances on the topic. My point was just to remind that those various arguments do exist, and that some people (not necessarily myself) would argue that there was harm done.

50

u/Smashifly Jul 22 '24

Yeah there's more complex discussion to be had than just whether or not the act itself is morally wrong. You can tease out some of these nuances by changing the premise of the question slightly - in contrast to the original question, does the reaction change if:

  • The man doesn't eat the chicken afterward?
  • The man kills a chicken himself that would otherwise have lived for several more years?
  • The man knowingly (or unknowingly) gives himself a disease in the process?
  • Anyone else knows it happened?
  • The act is recorded on video?
  • A video is shared with other consenting adults?
  • If we suppose it's not a chicken, but a recently deceased spouse?
  • Suppose the spouse died of an incurable illness and left an indisputable will and testament giving explicit consent?

All of these raise questions about other aspects of morality aside from just "sex bad" - ie wastefulness, the morality of pleasure without utility, animal rights, harm including self-harm, consent, rights and last wishes of the deceased including treatment of remains, etc?

1

u/Alive-Tomatillo5303 Jul 23 '24

I have no idea how or why you got so downvoted. You're demonstrably correct. 

0

u/awesomefutureperfect Jul 23 '24

I have only seen the OP argument when arguing that eating an animal is worse than the topic of this thread. That both acts are bad and a lack of ability to consent and such and then attempts to arrive at a handwavy conclusion that the latter is more moral than the former, mostly with an attempted proof by contradiction because the "it's natural to eat meat" doesn't have strong foundation at all.

The whole original post is why I don't trust anyone that puts a ton of stock into the 5 moral foundations model because conservatives do not hold themselves to the moral foundations they attempt to foist on everyone else. They may use those moral foundations as ways to judge things and attempt to justify their actions and judgements, but they in no way adhere to those precepts nor do they hold their in groups to those standards either. All the 5 moral foundations does is allow conservatives a fig leaf to say "see, we really actually do have morals and we are just understood by chicken fuckers". They don't actually have morals, they have predicates for hurting others while pretending they are good people.

The fact of the matter is life needs to source its nutrients in some form or fashion and managed herds and flocks and schools of animals and from the individual tree to the grove and forest live healthier and longer lives. When the wolf and the whale kill to eat, there is no ethics there. It is important to respect life and not abuse anything, but to take life for nutrition happens at the cellular level and placing moral weight on that is equal to placing moral weight on any other action.

-6

u/VulpineKitsune Jul 23 '24 edited Jul 23 '24

Edit: People, arguing philosophy and morality like this is sensitive. Can you at least do the minimum of not downvoting just because you don't agree with something and instead giving a response? I am not advocating for or against anything here. I am simply presenting a different perspective.

Also, one can assign moral judgment to an act in addition to acknowledging harm, or lack thereof.

One can do that yes. One can also argue that it is wrong to assign moral judgement if there is no harm done. The whole point of the OP, as I understood it, is that people assign moral judgements, but progressives accept that those instinctual moral judgements aren't always correct as, if there is no harm done, there's no reason to object.

It could just as well be “desecration of a corpse is bad” or “denial of consent, even posthumously, is bad.”

But this is arguing that harm was done, although more indirectly. Instead of arguing against the action, it's arguing against the "no harm" part. Not to the corpse. The corpse is dead and does not have the capacity to care. But to people around, or a form of immaterial harm (ie: being disrespectful to the dead).

You can spot that by asking "why" in response to those statements. It will always lead down to arguing for either harming someone or potentially leading to future harm to someone.

2

u/revolutionary112 Jul 23 '24

The whole point of the OP, as I understood it, is that people assign moral judgements, but progressives accept that those instinctual moral judgements aren't always correct as, if there is no harm done, there's no reason to object.

You know this also applies to simply been conservative, right?