Why I'm an omnivore.
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:59 pm
I just want to give a quick hello to everyone here, I found this forum by finding the counter-argument to Name The Trait, I read through the entire wiki, other than the First Order Logic parts (I'm not well versed in that syntax), and it addressed many of the concerns I had and was very well written.
I've been investigating Vegan Ethics for the last 2-3 months, I think it's an important question to ask ourselves, not just because we eat animals, but because the general question of "What should have moral consideration and why?" is a generally interesting and important philosophical question.
I'm personally either a Moral Nihilist (non-cog) or Subjectivist, depending on definition, but definitely an anti-realist. I think morals equate to preferences, but I take a game theory approach to normative ethics, similar to rule utilitarianism. To me, the purpose of a moral discussion is to talk about what happens and what we should do when values conflict. I want A, you want not-A.
When it comes to the vegan question, what it comes down to, for me, is the philosophy and science of the mind. What does it mean to have the capacity to value something? We could say, well, behaviorly, clearly animals value things. In this sense, however, I would say a Chess AI values winning a game of chess, as it does actions for that goal and avoids behaviors that would not reach that goal. This tends not to be what we talk about when it comes to values. It's not merely the act of moving towards a goal, nor having a system that informs those decisions. As a free-will eliminativist, I wouldn't say, that in any meaningful sense, we "make" those type of decisions. What I do think matters, is the capacity to be aware of the things we desire. For us to be aware of the things we desire, we must be aware of 1) Our desires 2) Our selves 3) How they relate. It is a confliction about these understandings that starts a true moral discussion. For these things to be true, typically, a creature will require a form of higher-order consciousness and metacognition leading to self-awareness. Hypothetically, if the world were populated with P-Zombies, I couldn't have value confliction of any type, and the question would only be how do I maximize my own pleasure in this "game".
I don't think it is the case that humans are the only animals capable of self-awareness, but it appears to be a difficult to obtain trait. It would appear that we are the most cognitively complex animal on the planet, and this feature doesn't develop for up to 24 months. Maybe you go Wittgenstein and say that you need language to be the content of your thoughts, or perhaps scientific and say it's due to an undeveloped neocortex, I don't know. It does seem to be the case though, we don't have a sense of "what it is to be" during these periods.
The mirror test is a test that seems to show self-recognition, though one can argue that self-recognition is not the same as self-awareness, and I would certainly agree that on principal, this is correct, and that failing a mirror test could have the opposite and reverse problem, I think it's among the better tests to develop inferences, as it correlates with what we know about ourselves (though I've seen developments towards meta-cognition tests in general, which are a piece of the puzzle).
Anyways, at this point, I don't eat anything that passes the mirror test or shows cognitive complexity with animals that do (It seems to be the case that animals passing the mirror test, sans Ants (I can go more into ants if anyone wants) are the most cognitivly complex animals in other areas that don't have to do with the mirror test). I'm undecided on pigs, but I'm fairly confident on chickens.
In case anyone is curious and to head a few questions to the pass: I do believe in extrinsic value. A house doesn't have value in and of itself, for itself, but burning it down would effect those that do. Were it the case that people put enough extrinsic value in something, I wouldn't want to damage or destroy that thing, regardless of its lack of intrinsic value.
Feel free to pick apart my beliefs, I always remain civil.
I've been investigating Vegan Ethics for the last 2-3 months, I think it's an important question to ask ourselves, not just because we eat animals, but because the general question of "What should have moral consideration and why?" is a generally interesting and important philosophical question.
I'm personally either a Moral Nihilist (non-cog) or Subjectivist, depending on definition, but definitely an anti-realist. I think morals equate to preferences, but I take a game theory approach to normative ethics, similar to rule utilitarianism. To me, the purpose of a moral discussion is to talk about what happens and what we should do when values conflict. I want A, you want not-A.
When it comes to the vegan question, what it comes down to, for me, is the philosophy and science of the mind. What does it mean to have the capacity to value something? We could say, well, behaviorly, clearly animals value things. In this sense, however, I would say a Chess AI values winning a game of chess, as it does actions for that goal and avoids behaviors that would not reach that goal. This tends not to be what we talk about when it comes to values. It's not merely the act of moving towards a goal, nor having a system that informs those decisions. As a free-will eliminativist, I wouldn't say, that in any meaningful sense, we "make" those type of decisions. What I do think matters, is the capacity to be aware of the things we desire. For us to be aware of the things we desire, we must be aware of 1) Our desires 2) Our selves 3) How they relate. It is a confliction about these understandings that starts a true moral discussion. For these things to be true, typically, a creature will require a form of higher-order consciousness and metacognition leading to self-awareness. Hypothetically, if the world were populated with P-Zombies, I couldn't have value confliction of any type, and the question would only be how do I maximize my own pleasure in this "game".
I don't think it is the case that humans are the only animals capable of self-awareness, but it appears to be a difficult to obtain trait. It would appear that we are the most cognitively complex animal on the planet, and this feature doesn't develop for up to 24 months. Maybe you go Wittgenstein and say that you need language to be the content of your thoughts, or perhaps scientific and say it's due to an undeveloped neocortex, I don't know. It does seem to be the case though, we don't have a sense of "what it is to be" during these periods.
The mirror test is a test that seems to show self-recognition, though one can argue that self-recognition is not the same as self-awareness, and I would certainly agree that on principal, this is correct, and that failing a mirror test could have the opposite and reverse problem, I think it's among the better tests to develop inferences, as it correlates with what we know about ourselves (though I've seen developments towards meta-cognition tests in general, which are a piece of the puzzle).
Anyways, at this point, I don't eat anything that passes the mirror test or shows cognitive complexity with animals that do (It seems to be the case that animals passing the mirror test, sans Ants (I can go more into ants if anyone wants) are the most cognitivly complex animals in other areas that don't have to do with the mirror test). I'm undecided on pigs, but I'm fairly confident on chickens.
In case anyone is curious and to head a few questions to the pass: I do believe in extrinsic value. A house doesn't have value in and of itself, for itself, but burning it down would effect those that do. Were it the case that people put enough extrinsic value in something, I wouldn't want to damage or destroy that thing, regardless of its lack of intrinsic value.
Feel free to pick apart my beliefs, I always remain civil.