Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pm Interest meaning desire.
I don't think that clarifies anything, "desire" is a concept notion just as much as "interest".
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pm If you and the other person were the only beings with interests, yes. Otherwise, it would favor the car owners, as the consistent maintenance of the law provides a much greater fulfillment of interest than you may suffer in violation.
Why would the law be relevant here? That just begs the question, what justifies the existing laws? If my interest in a new car can be greater than the legal owner and therefore I can be justified in stealing the car then we have laws that violate our ethical standards.

We could have a new law, for example, before I take the new car I would have to justify in court that my "interest" is greater. If I win the ownership of the car changes to me.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pm In one on one comparisons, the degree of sentience of desirerer and the degree of desire are proportional to the worthiness of fulfilling o e interest over another.
How does this explain how you'd actually compare?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pm Certainly not, as the rat is far less sentient than you and there is no others vouching for the rat’s interest.
Why "certainly not"? What principles were used to evaluate the situation? So if an animal is less sentient that justifies me violating its interest? So that would be a justification for raising animals for food...right? Humans are far more sentient than cow's so our interests have more importance than there interests so we can raise them for food.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Evidently I’m not sure what you’re asking me for, so please excuse my attempt to fulfill that.
carnap wrote: Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:01 pmI don't think that clarifies anything, "desire" is a concept notion just as much as "interest".
An interest or a desire is the feeling experienced when one cares or would prefer that something be or happen. For example, we can refer to wanting a car as a desire as it is characterized by the preference that a car be made of one’s possession, over say, that you may own it, or the car is destroyed.
carnap wrote: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pmWhy would the law be relevant here?
Because the law begets less violation of interest than no law, so weakening it, by say, favoring car thiefs, entails a weakening of this protection.
carnap wrote:That just begs the question, what justifies the existing laws?
That’s true and I’m sorry about that. I think existing laws are justified (in the western world) because they are usually not terrible and promote consideration of others’ interests. For example, laws against stealing promote keeping owners fulfilled by providing incentives for not stealing their property. Of course, there is a violation of interest for thiefs, but losses are often more damaging than gains are fulfilling, so they are less violated, not to mention that many will not only deterred from thievery, but will lose interest in it because of societal conditioning.
If my interest in a new car can be greater than the legal owner and therefore I can be justified in stealing the car then we have laws that violate our ethical standards.
But there are more than two people in reality, and the laws do more than violate the thief’s interest, which greatly outweighs his loss.
We could have a new law, for example, before I take the new car I would have to justify in court that my "interest" is greater. If I win the ownership of the car changes to me.
Sure, but there are more than 2 people invested in any given car, and that would become tedious and expensive to calculate as extended family and friends are interviewed to determine their preference. The money could be spent better on welfare programs, for example.
carnap wrote: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pmHow does this explain how you'd actually compare?
Degree of desire and degree of sentience are proportional to moral value, and in comparisons involving more than two entities, the number favoring a given side is proportional to its moral value. We consider all three of these when making a comparison.

To measure to degree of desire with people, simply ask them how much they want it. For animals and others that can’t communicate easily, use knowledge of how they respond to certain situations. For example, if a dog makes a mild bark when pushed to the side, while crying when kicked, we can be fairly certain the dog prefers to not be kicked more than he prefers to not be brushed off to the side. The same can be said for fulfillment’s: do the rats come to one food more quickly than the other? If so, we can say that the rat prefers the first over the second.

We can really only ballpark sentience. Probably the best way is to compare brain to body mass ratios. Other marks of intelligence are useful as well, such as being able to recognize oneself or group behavior.

The last one just involves counting. Still, not all of the entities can be considered equal, so it could be useful to count in groups: 20 people and 2 dogs want to eat 8 goats, for example.
carnap wrote: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:04 pmWhat principles were used to evaluate the situation?
You are more sentient than the rat. You probably want the rat out less than the rat wants to stay in the house. No one cares about the rat and probably no one cares about how the rat affects you. However, you are significantly more sentient than the rat, so the good thing for some outside actor to pick would be to give priority to your interests. However, the good thing for you to do would be to accommodate the rat (unless guests who came over often hated the rat).
carnap wrote:So if an animal is less sentient that justifies me violating its interest?
Ideally you and the rat could find a way to live in harmony or you could make the rat your pet or something, but that isn’t practical for most people, and it is easy to redeem yourself for petty violations by doing charitable works.
carnap wrote:So that would be a justification for raising animals for food...right? Humans are far more sentient than cow's so our interests have more importance than there interests so we can raise them for food.
Except that it is feasible and practicable to choose the “live in harmony” path with animals. If it weren’t, sure, but it is for most people in the developed world. Not to mention that more food could be produced if the resources allocated to animal agriculture were allocated elsewhere.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:04 am An interest or a desire is the feeling experienced when one cares or would prefer that something be or happen. For example, we can refer to wanting a car as a desire as it is characterized by the preference that a car be made of one’s possession, over say, that you may own it, or the car is destroyed.
This description is rather human-centric, being able to prefer "something be or happen" requires a conceptual understanding of events and a host of other things. So what does it mean to say, for example, that a rat has interests or desires?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:04 am But there are more than two people in reality, and the laws do more than violate the thief’s interest, which greatly outweighs his loss.
I'm not sure how the number of people would change anything here. The point is that "ownership" as currently understood makes little sense with what you're saying. If interests are what matter than you cannot simply say "I own this" and therefore you cannot have it. That ownership is artificial and a product of existing laws.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:04 am Degree of desire and degree of sentience are proportional to moral value, and in comparisons involving more than two entities, the number favoring a given side is proportional to its moral value. We consider all three of these when making a comparison.
How so? And how would you compare? How do you compare the "degree of desire" or "degree of sentience"?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:04 am For example, if a dog makes a mild bark when pushed to the side, while crying when kicked, we can be fairly certain the dog prefers to not be kicked more than he prefers to not be brushed off to the side....
This doesn't explain how you'd compare between species. Okay the dog prefers not to be kicked but how does that compare to kicking a person? A cat? An elephant?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:04 am You are more sentient than the rat. You probably want the rat out less than the rat wants to stay in the house. No one cares about the rat and probably no one cares about how the rat affects you. However, you are significantly more sentient than the rat, so the good thing for some outside actor to pick would be to give priority to your interests.
What does it mean to say that I'm more sentient than the rat? How do you determine whether one entity is more sentient than another?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:04 am Ideally you and the rat could find a way to live in harmony or you could make the rat your pet or something, but that isn’t practical for most people, and it is easy to redeem yourself for petty violations by doing charitable works.
How do you live in harmony with an animal that has conflicting interests with us and that cannot be negotiated with? One could certainly try to confine one rat, but they multiple rather fast. You'll have a house of rats within a couple of years.

How is what is and isn't practical an issue here? The rat and my interests conflict, how do I determine when I'm justified in doing something about the rat?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:04 am Except that it is feasible and practicable to choose the “live in harmony” path with animals. If it weren’t, sure, but it is for most people in the developed world. Not to mention that more food could be produced if the resources allocated to animal agriculture were allocated elsewhere.
How is that in general feasible? Our interests conflict with the "interests" of animals. In any case, if greater sentience is a justification for me doing something about the rat (which typically means it dying in some way) then why wouldn't it also be a justification for me raising an animal to eat? My interests in a tasty meal are greater than the "interests" of the animal's continued exists since it is far less sentient to me.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:54 amThis description is rather human-centric, being able to prefer "something be or happen" requires a conceptual understanding of events and a host of other things.
Right, but that conceptual understanding isn’t binary. There are degrees of understanding which elicit different degrees of consideration.
carnap wrote:So what does it mean to say, for example, that a rat has interests or desires?
It means for a rat to prefer an outcome in the limited understanding of which it can.
carnap wrote:I'm not sure how the number of people would change anything here.
Because more people entails more interests which elicit more consideration.
carnap wrote:The point is that "ownership" as currently understood makes little sense with what you're saying. If interests are what matter than you cannot simply say "I own this" and therefore you cannot have it. That ownership is artificial and a product of existing laws.
I’m not sure how you’ve come to believe that I don’t think ownership is a product of the law. Defending the usefulness of the law doesn’t embed it outside of human society.
carnap wrote:How do you compare the "degree of desire"
This is part of what you’re asking me about with the dog, so I’ll address it there.
carnap wrote:or "degree of sentience"?
Brain to body mass ratios are a good approximation.
carnap wrote:This doesn't explain how you'd compare between species. Okay the dog prefers not to be kicked but how does that compare to kicking a person? A cat? An elephant?

You push and kick the cat and elephant and measure the response. You can ask the person or push and kick them.
carnap wrote:What does it mean to say that I'm more sentient than the rat?
You have a greater conceptual understanding of interests and are more invested in them.
carnap wrote:How do you live in harmony with an animal that has conflicting interests with us and that cannot be negotiated with? One could certainly try to confine one rat, but they multiple rather fast. You'll have a house of rats within a couple of years.
Like I suggested before, you probably can’t. The ideal case probably doesn’t exist.
carnap wrote:How is what is and isn't practical an issue here? The rat and my interests conflict, how do I determine when I'm justified in doing something about the rat?
We want the best POSSIBLE outcome. Can the rat and you live together? No. Can you leave and let the rat live on? Yes. Can you kick out the rat and live on? Yes. We choose the last option because it is the best possible option, fulfilling your greater interest over the rat’s lesser interest instead of vice versa.
carnap wrote:How is that in general feasible?
Maintaining a vegan diet in the first world?
carnap wrote:Our interests conflict with the "interests" of animals. In any case, if greater sentience is a justification for me doing something about the rat (which typically means it dying in some way) then why wouldn't it also be a justification for me raising an animal to eat? My interests in a tasty meal are greater than the "interests" of the animal's continued exists since it is far less sentient to me.
Because, as I hope you’re aware, not all tasty meals are made from animals. It is feasible for you to do something else which fulfills both your interest AND the animals’ interests
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:20 am Right, but that conceptual understanding isn’t binary. There are degrees of understanding which elicit different degrees of consideration.
Based on what exactly? Why must there be "degrees of understanding"? And do the "degrees" represent differences in kind? Nobody has good answers here because we don't know much about how the brain produces the abstract conceptual framework that is present in humans.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:20 am It means for a rat to prefer an outcome in the limited understanding of which it can.
And what would it mean for a rat to prefer an outcome? The problem here is "preference" is a loaded term, when we talk about "preferences" we typically think of the human-centric notion. But more generally it just means a disposition for one thing over another but that doesn't say anything about concepts. If I made a robot that can only turn right you can say it has a "preference" for turning right but that preference obviously has nothing to do with any desire or other complex cognition.

On the other hand if you're going to association some intention to a preference than its not clear in what sense a rat has "preferences".
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:20 am I’m not sure how you’ve come to believe that I don’t think ownership is a product of the law. Defending the usefulness of the law doesn’t embed it outside of human society.
Not sure what you're trying to say here but the point is that when you frame matters in terms of "interests" the outcomes aren't clear.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:20 am Brain to body mass ratios are a good approximation.
Why is that? Brain/body mass ratios don't seem to approximate anything well so why would they approximate the degree of desire? Different brain areas have different functions, if an animal has a larger than normal brain because they have a very advanced visual cortex why would that say anything about their "degree of desire"?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:20 am You push and kick the cat and elephant and measure the response. You can ask the person or push and kick them.
All mammals will have similar responses to being kicked , does that mean they all perceive and experience being kicked the same? No...similarity in behavior doesn't mean similarity in cognition.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:20 am We want the best POSSIBLE outcome. Can the rat and you live together? No. Can you leave and let the rat live on? Yes. Can you kick out the rat and live on? Yes. We choose the last option because it is the best possible option, fulfilling your greater interest over the rat’s lesser interest instead of vice versa.
Why is letting the rats live in my antic not a possible outcome? Its possible, it just has certain consequences. So you have to address why I'm justified in harming a rat because the rats interests conflict with mine. In this case it would very likely be multiple rats. So how do we compare interests here? Why am I justified in preferring my interests? Because they are "greater"? So why cannot I say the same in the case of meat? My interests in having a tasty nutritious meal are greater than the interest the cow has in his continued existence (which may very well be zero....at least in the moral sense)? You say because a vegan meal can be tasty. But what if someone, as many do, prefer the non-vegan one?
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:09 pmWhy must there be "degrees of understanding"?
Because it is evident from the behavior of different organisms, that some must understand interest better than others.
carnap wrote:And do the "degrees" represent differences in kind?
Only in the kinds of understandings and misunderstandings.
carnap wrote:Nobody has good answers here because we don't know much about how the brain produces the abstract conceptual framework that is present in humans.
Knowing how the brain works is irrelevant to whether or not we can measure a phenomenon of understanding.
carnap wrote:And what would it mean for a rat to prefer an outcome?
For the rat to be able to learn to seek that outcome because it prefers it.
carnap wrote:If I made a robot that can only turn right you can say it has a "preference" for turning right but that preference obviously has nothing to do with any desire or other complex cognition.
No one was using preference in this manner until now.
carnap wrote:On the other hand if you're going to association some intention to a preference than its not clear in what sense a rat has "preferences".
In the sense that it can learn to achieve them or otherwise be conditioned to maintain them.
carnap wrote:Why is that? Brain/body mass ratios don't seem to approximate anything well so why would they approximate the degree of desire? Different brain areas have different functions, if an animal has a larger than normal brain because they have a very advanced visual cortex why would that say anything about their "degree of desire"?
Degree of sentience is not the same thing as degree of desire.
carnap wrote:All mammals will have similar responses to being kicked , does that mean they all perceive and experience being kicked the same?
Do you really believe that an elephant will be just as disturbed by a kick or push than a mouse or dog?
carnap wrote:No...similarity in behavior doesn't mean similarity in cognition.
That wasn’t the claim. This was in response to your question about degree of desire. This doesn’t have to do with sentience.
carnap wrote:Why is letting the rats live in my antic not a possible outcome? Its possible, it just has certain consequences.
Suboptimal would probably be a better word. Choosing to let the rats live with you violated your interest and only fulfills a few rats’. You are considerably more sentient than the rats. The rats and you are probably equally invested in this outcome. You can also factor in the altruistic potential of both parties. The rats probably have none and you have a lot. If the rats infest your house, you may become sick, busy with the rats, sleepless, or otherwise unhealthy, drawing your time and money away from charities and towards yourself.
carnap wrote:So why cannot I say the same in the case of meat? My interests in having a tasty nutritious meal are greater than the interest the cow has in his continued existence (which may very well be zero....at least in the moral sense)? You say because a vegan meal can be tasty. But what if someone, as many do, prefer the non-vegan one?
Because unless you have some mental disability which makes you fixate incessantly on meat, you probably will also be fulfilled by a tasty vegan meal, just less, allowing the animal to live and you to eat a suboptimal, but still valuable meal.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:09 pm Because it is evident from the behavior of different organisms, that some must understand interest better than others.
What makes it event? To try to induce the level off "interests" from an animal's behavior you first need a clear definition of what you mean by "interests". You keep kicking the can down the street, that is you keep avoiding critical conceptual clarification.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:09 pm Knowing how the brain works is irrelevant to whether or not we can measure a phenomenon of understanding.
How do you measure a cognitive ability without knowing how its produced in the brain? What exactly will you measure? Behavior? Similar behaviors can have very different neurological basis.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:09 pm For the rat to be able to learn to seek that outcome because it prefers it.
This is a tautological, you're using a term to define a term. What does it mean for a rat to prefer an outcome? "because it prefers it".
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:09 pm No one was using preference in this manner until now.
Its not clear how "preference" is being used which is just my point, the terms being used are loaded and need to be clarified if one is going to have any sort of meaningful conversation.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:09 pm Degree of sentience is not the same thing as degree of desire.
Okay, why would it approximate sentience when it doesn't seem to approximate any particular cognitive trait?
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:09 pm Do you really believe that an elephant will be just as disturbed by a kick or push than a mouse or dog?
I don't know because I have no way to evaluate it. The behavioral responses are similar and there is no way to measure how their inner experiences differ or even if there is an inner experience at all.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:09 pm Because unless you have some mental disability which makes you fixate incessantly on meat, you probably will also be fulfilled by a tasty vegan meal, just less, allowing the animal to live and you to eat a suboptimal, but still valuable meal.
"Just less" is precisely the point. There is a preference for meat just as there is a preference to not have rats in your attic. In both cases we are preferring our interests over the potential "interests" of another animal. Humans do this all the time with nearly everything we do so you need to explain the difference between meat and all the other potential issues. For western folks love to travel, but travel wastes resources and harms animals and is purely a matter of desire. Here we are, once again, preferring our interests over the interests of other animals and even the ecological health of the planet as a whole.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:29 pmHow do you measure a cognitive ability without knowing how its produced in the brain? What exactly will you measure? Behavior? Similar behaviors can have very different neurological basis.
Yes, behavior. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
carnap wrote:This is a tautological, you're using a term to define a term. What does it mean for a rat to prefer an outcome? "because it prefers it".
You’re right, sorry. It just means for the rat to be able to learn to achieve that outcome.
carnap wrote:Okay, why would it approximate sentience when it doesn't seem to approximate any particular cognitive trait?
Because an approximation doesn’t have to be perfect and it makes sense probabilistically: having more brain mass for less body mass makes it more likely to have some of that dedicated to sentience than to have less / more brain mass for less / more body mass (because the brain’s size will fit the functions of the body) or than less brain mass for more body mass (because the body will require more of the brain).
carnap wrote:I don't know because I have no way to evaluate it.
The dog will actually be moved by your kick, whereas the elephant won’t, leaving the former probably more displeased than the latter. Same with the push, but they both care even less.
carnap wrote:The behavioral responses are similar and there is no way to measure how their inner experiences differ or even if there is an inner experience at all.
Are you a solipsist?
carnap wrote:"Just less" is precisely the point. There is a preference for meat just as there is a preference to not have rats in your attic. In both cases we are preferring our interests over the potential "interests" of another animal. Humans do this all the time with nearly everything we do so you need to explain the difference between meat and all the other potential issues. For western folks love to travel, but travel wastes resources and harms animals and is purely a matter of desire. Here we are, once again, preferring our interests over the interests of other animals and even the ecological health of the planet as a whole.
You’re totally missing the point. “Just less” is precisely the point, because a lesser good (+) plus an animal’s interest (+) is necessarily larger than a greater good (+) minus an animal’s interest, unless you’re desire for meat is so intense and you’re so much more sentient than that animal. If we agree that the lesser good is just less than the greater good, then that’s probably not the case.

X: the animal’s interest
A: the desire for tasty meat
B: the desire for a tasty vegan meal

A - X < B + X unless X << A and / or B << A

Western folks may like road trips, but there’s probably something they like just a little less that’s far less harmful which they can still do.
carnap
Anti-Vegan Troll
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by carnap »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:24 pm You’re right, sorry. It just means for the rat to be able to learn to achieve that outcome.
Rats can learn, but its important not to attach any intention to the act of learning. That is, while to our point of view the rat is learning to "achieve that outcome" that doesn't mean the rat has any awareness of the learning or the outcome.
Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:24 pm having more brain mass for less body mass makes it more likely to have some of that dedicated to sentience than to have less / more brain mass for less / more body mass (because the brain’s size will fit the functions of the body) or than less brain mass for more body mass (because the body will require more of the brain).
What makes it more likely? Sentience is one of many traits and brain structures vary greatly between species. This seems to be circular reasoning, its more likely because the "brain is bigger" but that is something that would have to be explained.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:24 pm You’re totally missing the point. “Just less” is precisely the point, because a lesser good (+) plus an animal’s interest (+) is necessarily larger than a greater good (+) minus an animal’s interest, unless you’re desire for meat is so intense and you’re so much more sentient than that animal. If we agree that the lesser good is just less than the greater good, then that’s probably not the case.

X: the animal’s interest
A: the desire for tasty meat
B: the desire for a tasty vegan meal

A - X < B + X unless X << A and / or B << A
The very issue here is the "unless". How do we compare the two? How do I know whether my interests in a meat dishes is "lesser" than the animals interests. And interests in what exactly? Also I'm making comparisons here and this doesn't address those issues. Why are people, for example, justified in travel for leisure but not in eating meat? Both violate the "interests" of other animals.
I'm here to exploit you schmucks into demonstrating the blatant anti-intellectualism in the vegan community and the reality of veganism. But I can do that with any user name.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Avoiding intuitive contradictions with sentience and morality

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

carnap wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:31 pmRats can learn, but its important not to attach any intention to the act of learning. That is, while to our point of view the rat is learning to "achieve that outcome" that doesn't mean the rat has any awareness of the learning or the outcome.
Why?
carnap wrote:What makes it more likely?
A bucket containing a finite amount of water is to be distributed among a set of smaller buckets. There’s a very special small red bucket that everyone loves. If we have more small buckets, we will have a smaller chance that the red bucket is filled than if we had less buckets and the same amount of water. Likewise, if we had less water, we are less likely to have a filled red bucket than if we had more water and the same amount of buckets. Let the bucket be mental capacity, the small buckets be cognitive functions, and the small red bucket be sentience.
carnap wrote:How do we compare the two?
Ask the person “would you like to eat a great meaty meal?” They will say yes. Ask “if you couldn’t, would you want to eat a pretty good meatless meal?” They will probably say yes. Ask them “how important are these two things to you overall and relative to each other?” They will probably say not that important and not that different. Compare these findings to the anguished cries and obvious distress of whatever animal they would choose to eat, which indicate a high degree of interest.
carnap wrote:How do I know whether my interests in a meat dishes is "lesser" than the animals interests.
Ask yourself and compare that to the behavior of an animal under the conditions you want to subject it to.
carnap wrote:And interests in what exactly?
In our example, the man has an interest in a meal and the animal has an interest in its life.
carnap wrote:Also I'm making comparisons here and this doesn't address those issues.
And you haven’t answered if you’re a solipsist. Sorry for not answering directly.
carnap wrote:Why are people, for example, justified in travel for leisure but not in eating meat? Both violate the "interests" of other animals.
You aren’t justified unless you can make your waste negligible or commit to doing good works greater than or equal to the harm you caused.
Post Reply