Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
DrSinger wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:58 am
Seems like AY is trying to troll the wiki page in attempt to undermine formal logic. You should check the edit history (I think any user can edit)
That's weird, I thought I had it set right, looks like "user" had editing rights by default too, and blocking * doesn't help.
Alright, I've changed the settings. What is very confusing is that one of them was able to upload a file... or was that just a change of the text on the file?
I'll try to test this.
EDIT: OK, there was no file upload. The troll just changed the description of the image on the page. I rolled it back.
Do you think it's worth checking to see if it was Isaac himself, or one of his fans?
Also, I seem to remember now that I didn't block all users from editing initially (since it's relatively easy to roll back), but thought I did. I was debating it and I guess I didn't end up doing it.
Well, it's done now.
Probably best this way, vandalism is too much of a pain to deal with.
I blocked them and rolled back the changes pretty soon after they made them. I havent had chance to go through the vid yet, but it just seems like another case of angry yelling.
I'll see if there's any clarification on the meaning of 'us/ourselves'
Not interested in hearing him yell right now.
Looking at comments though.
Who is Virtue Vegan? Very eloquent debunk, and gets at the heart of one of the contradictions we've been grappling with in trying to convert the argument into something coherent enough to evaluate:
VirtueVegan.jpg
If he's not on the forum, maybe somebody who Ask Yourself hasn't blocked can invite him.
We should integrate that point into the Wiki, because while we deal with those issues I don't think we've really expressed them clearly anywhere.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:45 am
Not interested in hearing him yell right now.
Looking at comments though.
Who is Virtue Vegan? Very eloquent debunk, and gets at the heart of one of the contradictions we've been grappling with in trying to convert the argument into something coherent enough to evaluate:
VirtueVegan.jpg
If he's not on the forum, maybe somebody who Ask Yourself hasn't blocked can invite him.
We should integrate that point into the Wiki, because while we deal with those issues I don't think we've really expressed them clearly anywhere.
Yes,, it was an eloquent debunk. Ask Yourself responded to it, but didn't bother to point out any supposed flaws in the debunk.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
I think we all know who it was . Surprised AY didnt delete it immediately. I don't understand how he thinks a 'general statement' can pass as a formal argument, basically an admittance that he is wrong.
VirtueVegan.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
DrSinger wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:35 am
I think we all know who it was
Awe, was that you? I was hoping we had a new intelligent logically competent person join the fray.
I imagine most logically competent fans either gave up or got banned long ago. He's essentially a pin up boy for angry teens now, among the ranks of the amazing atheist etc.
It's good that there's support for the comment, and very few fans even attempting to debunk it.
To start, I'm going to sub in "I am of moral value" instead of "humans are of moral value", since Isaac allows this substitution and thinks the argument still works, and it avoids all of the empirical issues with humans having a variety of traits which may be contributing some confusion.
I'll also use the example of a specific cow, Bessie
P2 - There is no trait absent in Bessie which if absent in Me would cause Me to deem Myself valueless.
Of course that generates an immediate contradiction because in a strict definition of "Me" (or human) it's no longer in the group "Me" if traits are removed (particularly the trait of "being Me"), thus asserting that something is and is not "Me", so that had to be fixed with a copy to make a steel-man. Without that the premise is incoherent and can't be evaluated.
Either that, or as in the "Virtue Vegan" comment, you're limited in the traits you can select which leaves a viable option to accept P2 (within those limits) while believing those forbidden traits are the source of moral value... thus a non sequitur.
So, that's the first thing that had to be fixed, and this fix exists in ALL versions, by using a "copy" instead. It also means ANY trait, even one if group identity, can be removed. E.g. from the copy it must be possible to remove the trait "is a human or a copy of a human" (this become relevant in a moment).
Here are our options as I see them:
1A. There is no trait absent in Bessie which if absent in a non-Me copy of Me would cause that copy to have no moral value.
(I think this is essentially what we have been using to deal with the issue of self-reference)
- What if the copy already had no moral value because it wasn't you? Can something without moral value be caused to have no moral value?
It doesn't seem like it. But if it can, it's much simpler to demonstrate it's a non sequitur. So that's the first non sequitur dead-end.
Here's a steel-man fix:
1B. There is no trait absent in Bessie which if absent in a non-Me copy of Me (a copy which has moral value prior to additional trait removal) would cause that copy to have no moral value.
-The presence of initial moral value in the copy seems to be implied by the wording, so that precludes "Me" as an exclusive trait to carry moral value.
-This would be a very generous steel-man to grant the pre-trait removal copy moral value when P1 doesn't say it has it, but the original argument didn't use a copy so when fixing that problem it seems only fair that we fix this one too
-Of course it would be easy to disagree with this premise if you thought Me-ness gave moral value, so it creates a more obvious point of contention.
-In practice in the argument, both presence, absence, and combinations of traits have been discussed, so that needs to be addressed:
1C. There is no trait or combination of traits (present or absent) in Bessie which if present or absent in a non-Me copy of Me (a copy which has moral value prior to removal or addition of other traits) would cause that copy to have no moral value.
-It seems like we can just assert that any copy of Me (even if traits are removed or added to make it completely different) has moral value, and that Bessie does not have moral value. If so, then the argument is proved a non sequitur. But that's the same non-sequitur we've tried to steel-man against in the first step:
-As mentioned earlier, can we remove the trait "is a copy of Me" from the copy? And could we add the trait "is Bessie" to it? Is that legitimate, or could it be? And if so, that forces Bessie to have moral value, and would create a contradiction arising from the above assertions.
-It's absurd to think this would work, but no limits at all have ever been suggested of the traits, so this may be the strongest steel-man (and the only one that avoids that original non sequitur).
In that case, I think we could demonstrate how that premise can be reduced to: Bessie has moral value.
P1 - I am of moral value
P2 - Bessie has moral value
C - Bessie has moral value
No longer a non sequitur, but it is circular logic. You can plug in anything there, a sponge? A rock? Religious scripture? Whatever. It's an assertion, not an argument.
No matter how we interpret it, I think this line of interpretation is a dead-end. One non sequitur, and one case of circular logic (being as generous as possible).
But there are other radically different options for interpretation, as I mentioned before.
2A. There is no trait absent in Bessie which if absent in a non-Me copy of Me would cause that Me to deem the copy to be without moral value.
(correcting for the same issues as above): 2C. There is no trait or combination of traits (present or absent) in Bessie which if present or absent in a non-Me copy of Me (a copy which I deem to have moral value prior to removal or addition of other traits) would cause Me to deem the copy (with new traits) to be without moral.
Same issues as 1C (the first non sequitur outcome mentioned), except the simplification is a non sequitur too:
P1 - I am of moral value
P2 - I do not deem Bessie to be without moral value
C - Bessie has moral value
Deeming causes a problem here. Just because you have considered something as such does not necessarily make something so.
Also, even if it did, failing to deem something morally valueless does not even mean it has been deemed TO have moral value.
P1 is an assertion of fact, P2 of perspective, P3 of fact.
Until we adjust the conclusion (which puts it at odds with the second half of the argument):
P1 - I am of moral value
P2 - I do not deem Bessie to be without moral value
C - I do not deem Bessie to be without moral value
Then again, circular logic.
3C. There is no trait or combination of traits (present or absent) in Bessie which if present or absent in a non-Me copy of Me (a copy which deems itself to have moral value prior to removal or addition of other traits) would cause the copy (the copy with new traits) to deem itself (the copy with new traits) morally valueless.
Now we could just be saying Bessie does not deem herself to be morally valueless.
We can obviously agree with that, but not believe what Bessie deems about herself is moral fact, and we could personally deem something in conflict with what Bessie deems.
This, also, is a non sequitur.
There are several other ways to assess it:
...would cause the copy (new traits) to deem ME (not the copy) morally valueless.
...would cause Me (not the copy) to deem Myself (not the copy) morally valueless.
(Any others?)
All not meaningful, all non sequiturs.
I think we could pretty easily run down every plausible interpretation and show a road map of everywhere it dead ends, and then prove it's a non sequitur or at best circular logic in all of those cases.
