@bob_the_fisherman Said
Yes, and I dispute that 'others' refers to human non-animals or whatever it is you call animals... And, even *if* it does, I would say, 'so what? Some dictionaries have "speciesist" in it as a real word, as opposed to a word that has meaning in the minds of some deluded people that think humans are animals but are not animals because they are animals...' that is to say, any word that denotes meaning, reason or purpose in any moral sense, is literally meaningless.
That's nice... I don't refer to animals as being an "other" toward which I need to act or not act in any way in order to be or not be selfish. As morality is, according to the naturalism espoused here, nothing more than statements of personal opinion, or like and dislike, as opposed to statements of truth, or, statements based on facts, your opinion is as valid as any other opinion that I consider to be totally invalid. And, in that at least, I am entirely correct.
And I am saying that that notion is literally meaningless to me.
As I see it, your use of the term 'selfish' implies that some moral component or aspect is attached to a 'selfish' act, yet, we have already established that this is false.
You could argue that it is non-beneficial or non-advantageous for me to eat animals, but I would dispute this, and, even *if* it was true, in many respects, even that notion is a pointless one (as, at the very least, it implies that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' way to act). But of course, there cannot be in a moral sense, nor can there be in an existential sense. What I mean is, as my life in a naturalistic universe is undirected, no move I make can be right or wrong morally or existentially or evolutionarily - if that makes sense...) All there is is my actions, and my actions are totally devoid of meaning, reason or purpose. I either survive and breed, or I do not. As I already have bred, from an evolutionary perspective, I am, by definition, fit. Beyond that, all valuations of action are meaningless - and even that valuation is merely a statement of a pointless fact, as opposed to a valuation that has any intrinsic meaning.
I must admit, I wonder how you will get from here to any ought in relation to human actions regarding animals? As this paradigm precludes an ought, it will, I think, be rather difficult.
See response on the "vegan myths" thread about why I ask you questions more than once:
@7ravis Said
Short answer: because I want bob and others to answer them.
Long answer: I don't want them to avoid every question that might create cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, bob's responses are "answers" in the sense that he is responding to a question. But they are not "answers" in the sense of answering within the question's frame of reference (some ways to do so: yes, no, I don't know, yes but, no but, etc). Instead of answering within the frame of reference, then pointing out that the framework is variable, bob likes to skip straight to pointing out that the framework is variable. But since I make no such claim for objectivity, bob's doing so only serves to avoid the question.
If he admitted that he was selfish in relation to animals, I would not make any ethical inferences from it. I just have noticed that bob seems to value the frame of reference I've laid out, including the definition of selfish and the reference to animals. If he truly didn't care (like he claims) then he should have no problem admitting that he is selfish with reference to animals (using the aforementioned definition).
If you want to understand what bob is doing, imagine that you're trying to ask someone questions, and instead of answering the questions, they just go into a long existential discussion of why your question is not objective.